University  of  California. 

FROM    TIIK    LIliRARV   OF 

DR.     FRANCIS     LIEBER, 

Professor  of  History  and  Law  in  Columbia  College,  No\v  Y»rk. 


THI:  GIFT  OF 

MICHAEL     REESj: 

Of  San  Francisco. 
1ST  3. 


SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER 


LUTHERAN  DOCTRINE 


LORD'S'   SUPPER. 


BY  THE  REV.  H.  I.  SCHMIDT,  D.D, 
I* 

Prof,  of  the  German  Lang.  !f  Lit.  fre.,  in  Col  Coll  N.  Y. 


NEW-YORK: 
PUBLISHED  BY  HENRY  LUDWIG, 

NO.     46,     VESE  Y-STREET. 

And  to  be  had  of  all  the  principal  Booksellers  throughout  the 
United  States. 

1852. 


53 


ENTERED  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1852,  by 

HENRY   LUDWIG, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Southern 
District  of  New-York. 


HISTORICAL  INTRODUCTION, 

THE  essay  which  is  here  published  in  a 
separate  form,  appeared  first  in  the  Evangel- 
ical Review,  being  the  lid  Article  of  the  Xth 
number  (October,  1851,)  of  that  quarterly.  Its 
separate  republication  having  been  extensively 
called  for,  it  was  deemed  desirable  that  a  briei 
history  of  the  doctrine  which  it  discusses,  more 
extended  than  the  design  of  the  article  itself 
permitted,  should  be  premised.  There  are 
sundry  reasons  for  regarding  a  historic  view 
of  our  doctrine  as  a  desideratum  at  the  present 
time.  It  is  important,  to  show  that  in  the  views 
respecting  the  Lord's  Supper,  which  Luther  so 
clearly  and  fully  stated,  and  so  ably  defended, 
he  propounded  no  novelties,  but  simply  re- 
asserted and  vindicated,  in  opposition  to  the 
errors  and  perversions  of  Romanism,  the  doc- 
trinal views  of  the  primitive  church,  and  above 
all,  the  sense  of  Holy  Writ,  conveyed  in  most 
direct  and  simple  language.  It  is  important  to 
show,  that  in  our  interpretation  of  the  words  of 
the  institution,  and  of  the  language  of  St.  Paul, 


4  HISTORICAL    INTRODUCTION. 

we  have  on  our  side  not  only  the  expositions 
given  by  the  early  Fathers  in  general,  but  the 
simple  and  strictly  scriptural  interpretations  of 
those  in  particular,  who  immediately  succeed- 
ed the  apostolic  age,  and  derived  their  views 
from  the  apostles  themselves.  It  is  the  more 
important  to  point  out  this  connexion,  because, 
even  if  these  primitive  Fathers  deserved  in  any 
particular  to  be  looked  upon  with  suspicion, 
which  we  deny,  there  could  be,  in  respect  of 
the  subject  here  discussed,  no  motive  to  change, 
to  distort,  or  in  any  way  to  pervert  and  corrupt, 
the  teachings  which  they  had  received  directly 
from  one  or  more  of  our  Lord's  apostles.  In 
matters  pertaining  to  the  polity  and  discipline, 
to  the  general  government  of  the  church,  we 
may  safely  admit,  without  any  serious  dis- 
paragement to  the  clergy  of  the  first  two  cen- 
turies, that  human  passions,  motives  of  self- 
interest,  and  self-aggrandizement  may  have 
led,  even  at  that  early  age,  gradually  and  per- 
haps imperceptibly,  to  arbitrary  arrangements 
and  assumptions  of  authority,  not  borne  out  by 
the  sanction  of  Scripture.  But  so  much  were 
the  circumstances  and  wants  of  the  infant 


HISTORICAL    INTRODUCTION.  O 

church  calculated  to  throw  power  into  the 
hands  of  her  pastors  and  teachers,  that  it  seems 
scarcely  just  to  charge  the  gradually  increasing 
importance  and  growing  authority  of  the  clergy 
to  their  own  ambitious  schemes  and  measures. 
However  this  may  be,  there  is  no  evidence  and 
no  reason  to  believe,  that  in  the  primitive  ages 
of  the  church  the  doctrines  of  Christianity 
suffered  any  corruption  within  her  pale  ;  on  the 
other  hand,  we  are  certain  that  the  early  Fa- 
thers were  the  staunch  and  faithful  protectors 
and  defenders  of  the  pure  and  uncorrupted  truths 
of  the  gospel,  in  opposition  to  the  speculatists 
and  heretics  who  sought,  in  various  ways,  to 
modify  and  pervert  them.  Doctrinal  corrup- 
tions within  the  church  were  of  later  growth, 
and  it  was  not  until  the  hierarchy  of  Rome 
was  fully  established,  that  it  occurred  to  am- 
bitious priests  and  arrogant  prelates,  that  the 
sacraments  might  be  effectually  employed  as 
means  of  exalting  their  personal  importance, 
and  increasing  their  official  dignity  and  power  ; 
and  to  render  them  thus  subservient,  the  doc- 
trines of  scripture  regarding  them  were  either 

distorted,  or  encumbered  with  human  inven- 
1* 


6  HISTORICAL    INTRODUCTION. 

tions.  But  on  subjects  of  this  kind  we  may 
safely  regard  the  early  church  as  holding  and 
promulgating  the  genuine  doctrines  of  Scripture, 
and  the  just  and  sound  views  which  she  had  re- 
ceived directly  from  the  lips  of  inspired  apostles. 
And  hence  it  is  that  we  deem  it  important  to 
trace  the  views  respecting  the  Lord's  Supper, 
which,  taught  by  our  symbolical  books,  are 
presented  and  defended  in  the  following  treatise, 
up  to  that  early  age,  in  which  the  doctrinal  cor- 
ruptions which  after-ages  of  pampered  prosper- 
ity and  priestly  arrogance  superinduced,  were 
still  unknown.  And  that  this  we  are  able  to 
do,  it  is  our  present  business  to  show  somewhat 
more  in  detail  than  our  limited  space  permitted 
in  the  following  essay.  We  merely  yet  remark 
that,  although  we  have  a  number  of  important 
authorities  before  us,  we  are  mainly  indebted 
for  much  that  follows  infra,  to  Guericke's 
Handbuch  der  KirchengescMcJite.  We  assert 
then,  that  the  church  has,  at  all  times,  from 
the  very  beginning,  held  and  avowed  the  be- 
lief, that  in  the  sacrament  of  the  altar  the  real 
(not  figurative)  body  and  blood  of  the  Saviour 
are  truly  present,  distributed  to  communicants, 


HISTORICAL    INTRODUCTION.  7 

and  received  by  true  believers  to  their  unspeak- 
able comfort  and  edification,  their  establish- 
ment, confirmation  and  advancement  in  that 
spiritual  life,  of  which  Christ  within  them 
is  the  vital  principle  and  the  very  essence. 
No  opposite,  nay,  no  other  *  view  ever 
received  ecclesiastical  sanction,  until  the  Re- 
formed church,  the  church  of  which  Calvin 
and  Zuingle  were  the  founders,  was  organ- 
ized. On  this  point  the  evidence  of  history 
is  clear  and  conclusive.  Let  us  then  look  back 
to  the  beginning,  and  thence  carry  our  view 
over  the  historic  page,  down  to  the  present 
time. 

From  the  earliest  times  the  church  regarded 
and  celebrated  the  Lord's  Supper,  not  as  a  mere 
memorial-feast,  commemorative  of  the  suffer- 
ings and  death  of  her  Lord,  but  as  a  most 
sacred  mystery,  as  the  highest  mystery  of  the 

*  For  the  Romish  doctrine-  of  transubstantiation,  being  a 
clumsy  attempt  rigidly  and  minutely  to  define  the  mode  of 
Christ's  presence  in  the  Eucharist,  is  only  a  monstrous  distor- 
tion, not  a  denial  of  the  truth.  It  distorts,  not  by  taking  away, 
but  by  adding.  The  church  of  Rome  goes  far  beyond  the 
truth,  while  Zuinglians  and  others  deny  it,  in  open  contradiction 
of  Scripture  and  of  the  testimony  of  the  early  church. 


8  HISTORICAL    INTRODUCTION. 

Christian  worship,  because  it  effected  a  mys- 
terious union  between  Christ  and  his  people, 
through  the  presence  and  reception  of  his 
body  and  blood.  Hence  from  it  were  excluded 
all  profane ;  and  hence  also  arose  the  false 
accusations  of  the  heathens,  that  in  this  supper 
Christians  partook  of  Thyestian  meals,  and  ate 
human  flesh,  against  which  absurd  charge 
Athenagoras  most  ably  defended  them>  in  his 
well-known  apology.  This  accusation  is  one 
of  those  extraneous  testimonies,  of  which  the 
hostility  of  Pagans  and  Jews  furnishes  not  a 
few :  although  a  gross  caricature  of  the  truth, 
it  proves,  by  its  very  presence,  the  existence 
and  prevalence  of  the  doctrine  caricatured. 

The  same  view  which  was  obviously  uni- 
versal in  the  early  church,  is  distinctly  implied 
in  the  language  employed  by  Ignatius,  when,  in 
the  20th  chapter  of  his  Ep.  to  the  Ephesians, 
and  in  the  7th  of  his  epistle  to  the  church  at 
Smyrna,  he  sets  forth  the  nature  of  the  Eucha- 
rist. This  Father,  whose  praise  was  in  all  the 
early  churches,  was  a  disciple  and  companion 
of  the  apostles ;  he  was  instructed  in  Christian 
truth  probably  by  either  Peter  or  John.  In 


HISTORICAL    INTRODUCTION.  V 

the  epistles  just  referred  to,  he  calls  the 
Eucharist  a  medicine  unto  immortality,  an  anti- 
dote against  death,  through  which  we  live 
evermore  in  Christ.  He  warns  against  the 
Docetse,  who  abstained  from  the  Lord's  Supper, 
because  they  refused  to  acknowledge  that  it  is 
the  flesh  of  our  Redeemer  Jesus  Christ."  Of 
course  these  heretics  could  not  oppose  a  doc- 
trine that  did  not  exist. 

Still  more  full  and  direct  is  the  testimony 
of  Justyn  Martyr,  born  A. D.  8 9,  martyred  A. D. 
163,  or  165.  He  was  the  first  apologist  of 
Christianity,  and  declares,  in  his  apology,  that 
the  language  which  we  shall  here  quote,  ex- 
presses the  faith  and  confession  of  the  church. 
Respecting  the  Eucharist  he  says :  We  receive 
it  not  as  common  bread  or  as  common  drink, .  . . 
but  we  have  been  taught  that  it  is  the  flesh  and 
blood  of  the  incarnate  Jesus." 

To  the  same  effect  Irenaeus,  who  studied  in 
Smyrna  under  Polycarp,  the  disciple  of  St. 
John,  and  died  A.D.  209,  as  bishop  of  Lyons, 
expresses  himself  in  his  celebrated  work  Con- 
tra Hereticos,  written  about  A.D.  107,  as 
follows  :  The  terrestrial  bread,  when  through 


10  HISTORICAL     INTRODUCTION. 

the  invocation  of  God  it  has  been  consecrated, 
is  no  more  common  bread,  but  the  Eucharist, 
which  consists  of  two  constituents,  the  one 
earthly,  the  other  heavenly."  From  this  he 
deduces  the  future  raising  up  of  the  body, 
"  inasmuch  as  through  Christ's  body  the  germ 
of  incorruptibility  is  deposited  within  us." 

The  testimony  of  the  Fathers  respecting  the 
doctrinal  views  inculcated,  and  the  doctrinal 
expositions  given  by  the  apostles  themselves, 
depends,  for  its  value  and  weight  of  author- 
ity, in  a  good  degree  on  their  greater  or 
less  proximity  to  the  age  concerning  which 
they  bear  witness.  It  is  obvious  that  here 
the  three  Fathers  whom  we  have  just  cited 
are  the  most  important,  not  only  because 
they  are  the  oldest  in  whose  writings  the 
Lord's  Supper  is  mentioned,  but  because 
the  sphere  of  labour  which  they  respectively 
occupied  in  the  church,  afforded  them  peculiar 
advantages  for  ascertaining  and  communica- 
ting the  faith  of  the  primitive  church,  in  res- 
pect of  doctrines  which  were  afterwards 
made  subjects  of  controversy.  Ignatius,  who 
is  very  properly  regarded  as  a  disciple  of  the 


HISTORICAL    INTRODUCTION.  11 

school  of  the  apostle  John,  resided  in  Asia 
Minor,  which,  as  the  theatre  of  the  labours  of 
the  apostles  John  and  Paul,  stood  ill  the 
highest  estimation,  as  having  preserved  in  its 
purity  the  earliest  form  of  Christianity  [vide 
Irenaeus  adv.  haer.  III.,  3.]  We  have  already 
remarked  that  he  was  a  friend  of  Polycarp, 
who,  according  to  the  most  authentic  primitive 
tradition,  was  a  pupil  of  the  apostle  John. 
Irenaeus,  also  from  Asia  Minor,  had  likewise 
known  and  heard  Polycarp ;  and  thus  also 
Justin  had,  during  his  journeys,  become  ac- 
quainted with  the  prominent  churches  in  Asia 
Minor.  Their  decided  and  remarkable  agree- 
ment both  in  the  doctrine  and  in  the  manner 
of  expressing  it,  is  therefore  of  the  utmost 
importance,  and  "must  convince  us  that  we 
have  here  the  original  doctrine  concerning  the 
Lord's  Supper,  derived  directly  from  the  apos- 
tles themselves."  [See  H.  L.  Heubner's 
Supplement  to  the  Vlth  Edition  of  G.  Biich- 
ner's,  Biblical  House-Concordance :  Halle, 
1845,  Article,  Lord's  Supper,  p.  3,  sq.]  To 
the  same  effect  might  be  cited  the  ancient  lit- 
urgical formulas,  for  the  celebration  of  the 


12  HISTORICAL    INTRODUCTION. 

Lord's  Supper,  especially  one,  which  is  as- 
cribed to  the  Apostle  James  ;  but  it  may  suffice 
to  refer  the  reader  for  information  on  this 
point,  to  Guericke's  Handbuch  der  Kirchen- 
geschichte,  Vol.  I.  p.  199.  We  may  also 
appeal  to  Tertullian  and  Cyprian,  and  others, 
as  avc  v.  i.:g,  only  more  distinctly  and  fully,  the 
same  view  of  the  Lord's  Supper  as  that  set 
forth  in  the  writings  of  those  primitive  Fathers ; 
but,  having  the  testimony  of  the  latter,  we  do 
not  consider  it  necessary  to  quote  the  language 
of  any  who  wrote  at  a  later  period. — What  we 
want  to  show,  is,  that  the  primitive  church 
held  the  view  of  the  Lord's  Supper  which  is 
taught  by  the  symbolical  books  of  the  Lutheran 
church,  and  this  we  have  satisfactorily  done. 
Later  changes  in  the  doctrinal  system  of  the 
church  cannot  at  all  affect  our  argument ;  but 
such  changes  were  by  no  means  in  haste  to 
come.  For,  from  the  beginning  of  the  fourth 
to  near  the  end  of  the  sixth  century,  the  real 
presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in 
the  Eucharist,  so  clearly  recognized  in  the 
period  just  partially  reviewed,  was  even  more 
decidedly  and  explicitly  avowed  and  confessed, 


HISTORICAL    INTRODUCTION.  13 

as  can  be  amply  demonstrated  from  the  liturgies 
of  this  period.  To  quote  from  these,  and 
to  cite  the  superabundant  testimonies  of  the 
Fathers  of  this  period,  the  limits  to  which 
we  must  here  confine  ourselves  forbid.  We 
again  refer  the  reader  for  ample  inform- 
ation to  Guericke's  Hnndbuch  der  Kirchen- 
geschichte,  Vol.  I.  p.  404,  sqq. — But  it  was 
during  this  period  also  that,  in  the  explicit  and 
distinct  manner  in  which  the  doctrine  was 
expressed  in  the  sacramental  liturgies,  the 
Lord's  Supper  began  to  be  gradually  regarded 
as  a  sacrificial  act  of  the  Christian  priest,  and, 
in  connexion  with  this  view,  others  which  we 
must  regard  as  erroneous,  developed  themselves 
into  shape  and  distinctness.  Prominent  among 
these  was  the  notion  of  its  being  an  oblatio 
pro  mortuis — a  sacrificial  act  repeating  the 
death  of  the  Redeemer, — by  which  departed 
souls  could  be  delivered  from  purgatory.  This 
absurd  view  began  to  prevail  more  and  more, 
and  was  particularly  indebted  to  Gregory  the 
Great,  who  not  only  decided  that  it  belonged 
essentially  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, but  rendered  it  popular  by  imaginative 
2 


14  HISTORICAL    INTRODUCTION. 

and  florid  representations  of  its  practical  value. 
And  out  of  this  notion  grew,  in  the  eighth  cen- 
tury, the  private  or  solitary  masses,  celebrated 
by  the  priest  alone,  notwithstanding  that  bish- 
ops and  councils  protested  against  the  abuse 
so  late  even  as  the  ninth  century.  The  want 
of  dogmatical  distinctness  and  definiteness  in 
stating  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  which  must 
always  prevail,  to  a  greater  or  less  degree, 
until  systematic  divinity  has  become  settled, 
could  not  fail  to  lead  to  discussions  and  to 
provoke  controversies.  It  is  unnecessary  here 
to  enter  into  specifications  respecting  these  ; 
the  less  so  as  in  one  most  important  point 
of  view,  they  will  be  fully  exhibited  in  a  trans- 
lation of  Thomasius'  Christologie  which  we 
intend  shortly  to  publish.  It  will  suffice  to  say, 
that  the  view  wh.ich  denies  the  real  presence 
of  Christ's  body  and  blood  in  the  Eucharist 
never  acquired  any  firm  footing  or  extensive 
influence  in  the  Church  :  its  only  distinguished 
defender  was  Berengarius  de  Tours,  a  man 
whose  repeated  tergiversations  and  recantations 
prove  him  so  utterly  destitute  of  truth  and  sin- 
cerity, as  to  cancel  all  his  claims  to  our  res- 


HISTORICAL    INTRODUCTION.  15 

pect.  His  unscriptural  views  were  condemned 
and  speedily  suppressed  by  the  Church.  The 
doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  which  had  grad- 
ually worked  its  way  upward,  and  had  first  been 
fully  developed  and  distinctly  stated  in  the  ninth 
century  by  Paschasius  Rhadbert,  was  now,  near 
the  end  of  the  eleventh  century,  the  dominant 
view,  having  gained  a  complete  victory  over 
the  heresy  of  Berengarius,  and  thrown  into  the 
background  the  original  apostolic  doctrine, 
which  taught  the  real  presence  without  defining 
the  quo  modo.  As  the  power  of  the  papal 
hierarchy  increased,  and  more  and  more  found 
its  interest  in  perverting  truth,  superstition 
grew  and  spread,  and  began  te  exert  its  bane- 
ful influence  especially  upon  men's  views  of 
the  Sacraments,  of  which  there  were  (about 
A.D.  1100,)  assumed,  without  the  slightest 
warrant  from  Scripture,  to  be  seven. — As  res- 
pects the  Eucharist,  the  doctrine  of  transub- 
stantiation, [a  term  first  used  by  Hildebert,] 
which  had,  as  we  have  seen,  gradually  gained 
the  ascendancy,  was  first  elevated  into  an  arti- 
cle of  faith  by  the  fourth  general  Lateran 
Council,  A.D.  1215,  while  Innocent  Hid.  filled 


16  HISTORICAL    INTRODUCTION. 

the  papal  see.  It  met  with  opposition  from 
various  quarters  as  late  as  the  13th  century, 
especially  from  the  theological  faculty  of 
Paris.  But  soon  every  dissentient  voice  was 
hushed :  papal  bulls  decreed  the  multiplication 
of  superstitious  practices  and  rites,  and  the 
festum  corporis  Domini  capped  the  climax  of 
the  absurd  and  gorgeous  mummeries  of  Rome. 
Even  before  the  end  of  the  13th  century  the 
cup  was  denied  to  the  laity.  We  have  never 
learned  how  the  introduction,  by  papal  author- 
ity, of  this  unscriptural  practice  is  to  be  recon- 
ciled with  the  pope's  alleged  infallibility ;  for, 
as  this  departure  from  the  original  institution 
arose  at  first  among  heretics,  Manichseans,  it 
was  very  rigorously  condemned  by  several 
bishops  of  Rome.  But  the  papacy  is  never  at 
a  loss  for  plausibilities. 

Although  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation, 
was  thus  permanently  incorporated,  with  all  its 
attendant  absurdities,  follies  and  abuses,  in 
Rome's  corrupt  system,  it  did  not  long  enjoy 
its  predominance  unquestioned  or  unassailed. 
The  original  and  purely  scriptural  doctrine  of 
the  Church  began  gradually  to  gain  new  friends 


HISTORICAL    INTRODUCTION.  17 

and  defenders,  and  to  win  its  way  to  the  res- 
pect and  acceptance  of  candid  inquirers. — Du- 
randus,  a  very  eminent  French  divine  (t!332,) 
d'Ailly,  chancellor  of  the  University  of  Paris, 
afterwards  bishop  of  Cambray,  and  subsequent- 
ly cardinal  (f!425,)  openly  declared  that  the 
doctrine  of  transubstantiation  was  contrary  to 
both  Scripture  and  reason.  Its  prominent  an- 
tagonist, however,  was  WyclifFe  (f!384,)  who 
unfortunately  was  not  satisfied  with  rejecting 
the  popish  heresy,  but  proceeded  to  deny,  as 
Berengarius  and  Ratramnus  had  done  before 
him,  that  there  was  any  real  presence  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist. 
The  same  denial  appears  in  the  writings  of 
some  other  theologians  of  the  period  immedi- 
ately preceding  the  Reformation;  and  thus  it 
was  reserved  for  Luther  and  the  apologists 
and  expounders  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
again  distinctly  to  assert,  clearly  to  unfold,  and 
triumphantly  to  vindicate  the  pure  doctrine  of 
Scripture,  as  taught  in  the  words  of  the  in- 
stitution and  in  the  1st,  Ep.  to  the  Corinthi- 
ans, and  held  by  the  primitive  Church.  Dr. 

Schmucker,   in   his  article  on  the  Eucharist, 

2* 


18  HISTORICAL    INTRODUCTION. 

cites  indeed  the  language  of  the  Augustana,  as 
quoted  and  explained  by  the  Apology,  and 
introduces  (as  he  tells  us,  by  way  of  explana- 
tion ! )  the  word  Romish  bracketed  into  the 
language  of  the  Apology.  The  Apology,  both 
in  the  German  and  in  the  Latin  language, 
distinctly  mentions  the  Greek  Church  (or  its 
Canon)  as  well  as  the  Romish  (in  the  German 
the  Romish  is  not  named,  but  evidently  intend- 
ed): and  as  the  word  hitherto  (bisher)  occurs  in 
the  passage  quoted,  we  should  like  to  know  what 
other  churches  than  the  Romish  and  the  Greek 
the  Apology  could  have  referred  to  :  we  should 
like  to  be  informed  whether,  during  many  cen- 
turies preceding  the  Reformation,  the  Church 
really  was  utterly  extinct,  or  whether  the  Greek 
and  Roman  communions,  however  corrupt, 
were  still  to  be  regarded  as  Churches.  If  not, 
we  should  like  to  know  at  what  precise  period 
the  Church  became  extinct :  we  suppose  it 
must  have  expired  immediately  after  the  reput- 
ed conversion  of  Constantine  the  Great,  for 
everybody  knows  that  during  his  reign,  and 
through  his  intervention,  the  flood  of  corruptions 
began  to  sweep  over  the  Church.  The  Ian- 


HISTORICAL    INTRODUCTION.  19 

guage  of  the  Apology,  which  Dr.  S.  so  adroitly 
cites,  with  his  amendment  or  supplement  in 
brackets,  is  perfectly  proper  and  just,  and 
cannot,  as  is  there  attempted,  be  employed 
against  the  Reformers 

When  Luther  first  began  to  protest  and  con- 
tend against  the  corruptions  of  the  Romish 
church,  he  was,  as  is  well  known,  by  no  means 
prepared  to  reject  the  doctrine  of  transubstantia- 
tion,  although  even  at  this  early  period  he  was 
far  more  solicitous  to  maintain  that  the  Saviour 
is  really  present  in  the  Eucharist,  than  to 
explain  the  manner  of  this  presence.  It  re- 
quired a  longer  and  more  searching  study  of 
the  Scriptures  to  lead  him  to  a  correct  view  of 
this  great  subject.  In  his  subsequent  contests 
against  the  Romish  superstition,  he  could  not 
fail  to  perceive  that  this  would  be  most  effectu- 
ally disposed  of,  by  assuming  that  the  bread  and 
wine  were  nothing  more  than  symbolic  signs. 
But  he  soon  obtained  the  clear  and  full  convic- 
tion, never  again  to  be  disturbed  or  shaken, 
that  every  exegesis  which  denies  a  real  presence 
of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  sacred  Supper,  is 
utterly  irreconcilable  with  the  words  of  the  in- 


20  HISTORICAL    INTRODUCTION. 

stitution,  and  the  parallel  passages.  And  ad- 
hering, thenceforward,  with  unwavering  firm- 
ness to  the  position,  that  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  are  truly  and  really  present  in  the  Eu- 
charist, he  continued  more  clearly,  soberly,  con- 
siderately and  intelligently  to  unfold,  to  divest 
of  all  human  adjuncts,  and  to  illustrate  the  doc- 
trine, on  the  basis  of  the  Scriptures  and  the 
faith  of  the  primitive  Church,  establishing  it 
firmly  in  the  dogmatic  system  of  the  Church, 
and  at  the  same  time,  from  the  year  1520,  he 
maintained  that  transubstantiation  was  a  fiction 
of  scholastico-metaphysical  subtilty,  whilst  he 
more  and  more  thoroughly  demonstrated  the 
real  presence  of  the  bread,  as  well  as  of  the 
body  of  Christ.  In  this  view  Melanchthon 
entirely  concurred  in  the  first  edition  of  his  loci. 
That  he  afterwards  changed  his  views  wrought 
no  little  evil  in  the  Church.  However,  the  dis- 
cussions and  controversies  which  subsequently 
arose  in  Germany  respecting  this  doctrine  do 
not  concern  us  here.  Although  it  passed  through 
sundry  modifications  in  the  dogmatic  systems 
of  individual  theologians  and  their  disciples, 
the  great  body  of  the  Church  has  always  ad- 


HISTORICAL    INTRODUCTION.  21 

hered  to  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures,  as 
held  by  the  early  Christians,  and  fully  exhibited 
in  our  symbolical  books.  —  There  is,  however, 
one  point  of  history  which  it  is  well  to  notice 
here.  The  American-Lutheran  opponents  of 
our  symbolical  theology  are,  probably  to  a  man, 
great  admirers  of  Spener  :  in  their  estimation 
the  pietistic  development  in  the  Lutheran  Church 
of  Germany  formed  the  most  flourishing  period, 
the  true  Bliithezeit,  of  Lutheranism  :  whatever 
sympathies  they  may  have  with  Lutheranism 
seem  to  revolve  around  this  point  as  their  centre, 
or  here  to  find  their  focus.  It  is  well  known 
that  the  leader  and  principal  advocate  of  Ame- 
rican Lutheranism  is  not  a  whit  behind  his 
school  in  this  distinguished  admiration  of  Spener 
and  his  measures.  —  We  too  entertain  a  high 
regard  for  Spener's  pure  and  lofty  character, 
and  profoundly  admire  his  laborious  and  devoted 
efforts  for  the  conversion  of  sinners  and  the 
advancement  of  vital  piety.  But  although  the 
views  of  practical  religion  which  he  held  and 
avowed,  and  the  measures  which  he  adopted, 
present  some  analogies  to  the  views  and  opera- 
tions of  those  who  in  this  country  practised,  or 


22  HISTORICAL     INTRODUCTION. 

still  practise  what  has  been  called  "  new  mea- 
sures," yet,  unlike  the  friends  of  new  measures 
in  our  communion,  Spener  never  for  an  instant 
faltered  in  his  loyal  attachment  to  the  Confessions 
of  our  Church ;  and  we,  accordingly,  claim  him 
as  a  strictly  consistent  symbolic  Lutheran.  That 
we  do  not  here  speak  unadvisedly,  we  consider 
it  of  some  importance  to  demonstrate.  We 
have  before  us  the  exposition  of  Christian  Doc- 
trine, published  by  Spener  for  the  use  of  the 
German  churches,  under  the  title :  "Dr.  Philipp 
Jacob  Spener's  einfache  Erklaerung  der  christ- 
lichen  Lehre  nach  der  Ordnung  des  kleinen 
Katechismus  Luthers  in  Fragen  und  Antworten 
verfasst  und  mit  noethigen  Zeugnissen  der 
Schrift  bewaehrt."  The  only  point  which  here 
concerns  us,  is  his  position  relative  to  our  doc- 
trine concerning  the  Lord's  Supper.  Here  he 
first  answers  the  question  :  "How  do  the  Pa- 
pists understand  these  words  (i.  e.  of  the  insti- 
tution) ?"  in  strong  terms  of  disapproval,  enfor- 
cing them  with  suitable  reasons.  Then,  on  p. 
427.,  comes  the  question :  "But  how  do  the  Re- 
formed understand  it  (the  Eucharist)  ?"  This 
he  answers  thus :  "So  as  that  the  body  and 


HISTORICAL    INTRODUCTION.  23 

blood  of  Christ  are,  in  their  essential  reality 
(dem  Wesen  nach)  present  only  in  heaven  above, 
whilst  on  earth,  on  the  other  hand,  nothing  but 
bread  and  wine  are  present ;  that  these  are 
memorials  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  in 
the  use  of  which  faith  recalls  these  to  recollec- 
tion, and  therefore  partakes  of  them  in  a  spirit- 
ual and  figurative  manner."  "Is  this",  he 
proceeds  to  ask,  "the  correct  understanding  ?" 
The  answer  is  :  "No :  this  also  cannot  be  the 
meaning  of  the  Lord  ;  for  1.,  this  view  also  i? 
an  artificial  mode  of  dealing  with  the  language 
of  the  Testament  (ist  auch  solcher  Verstand 
wider  die  Art  der  Testamentesworte  ver 
kunstelt),  and  the  word  'is'  is  defined  to  denote 
'signifies' ;  2.  the  Lord  does  not  say,  this  is  the 
memorial  feast  (Gedenkmal)  or  the  virtue 
(Kraft)  of  my  body,  but,  this  is  my  body;  3. 
the  apostle  calls  the  bread  the  communion  of 
the  body  of  Christ  (1.  Cor.  x.  16.),  which  must 
therefore  be  united  with  it;  since,  according 
to  that  (the  Reformed)  exposition,  not  the  bread, 
but  faith  would  be  the  communion  of  the  body 
of  Christ ;  4.  if,  in  the  Holy  Supper,  we  receiv- 
ed Christ  in  no  other  way  than  merely  by  our 


24  HISTORICAL    INTRODUCTION. 

faith,  that  Supper  would  have  been  instituted  in 
vain  and  without  any  use,  since  this  spiritual 
partaking  (Genuss)  of  him  takes  place  constantly, 
independently  of  the  Holy  Sacraments,  which 
is  not  compatible  with  the  wisdom  of  our  Saviour ; 
5.  we  would  have  nothing  more  in  the  Holy 
Sacrament  than  the  worthy  Ancients  (die  lieben 
Altvaeter)  had  in  their  paschal  lamb  with  a  much 
more  palpable  significance  (viel  deutlicherer 
Bedeutung :  a  signification  much  more  easily 
apprehended),  seeing  that  they  also,  when 
eating  it,  became  partakers,  by  faith,  of  the 
spiritual  benefits  obtained  for  us  by  Christ ; 
and  this  would  be  contrary  to  the  nature  (Art) 
of  both  Testaments,  because  in  the  Old  we 
find  the  shadow,  but  in  the  new  the  reality  of 
these  benefits." 

And  now  comes  the  question  :  "What  is  the 
correct  understanding  of  these  words  ?"  Which 
is  thus  answered  :  "That  which  our  Church 
teaches  in  simplicity ;  to  wit,  that  in  the  Holy 
Supper  we  truly  receive  bread,  as  we  perceive 
by  our  taste,  sight  and  smell ;  but  that,  at  the 
same  time,  through  the  efficacy  of  the  institution 
by  Christ  are  truly  presented  to  us,  together 


HISTORICAL    INTRODUCTION.  25 

with  the  bread,  the  real  body  of  Christ,  and, 
together  with  the  wine,  the  real  blood  of  Christ, 
to  be  partaken  of  by  us,  although  of  this  we 
neither  see  nor  taste  any  thing."  —  Again  he 
asks  :  "How  are  we  assured  that  this  is  the 
correct  understanding?"  Answer:  "Because 
1.,  This  is  the  simplicity  of  the  letter  in  the 
words  of  the  institution,  if  we  understand  them, 
as  we  are  wont,  in  common  life,  to  understand 
such  expressions  as,  'this  is  an  excellent  medi- 
cine,'and  the  like:  2.,  especially, because  Paul 
calls  the  bread  the  communion  of  the  body  of 
Christ,  1  Cor.  x.  16,  whence  bread  and  wine 
must  be  present,  and  connected  in  closest  union ; 
3.,  it  is  inseparable  from  the  nature  of  the  Sacra- 
ments, in  which  the  earthly  and  the  heavenly 
are  wont  always  to  be  together,  and  united  with 
each  other."  See  p.  428. 

Again  he  asks  :  "But  what  manner  of  eat- 
ing is  it?"  Answer:  "Not  by  any  means  a 
natural  corporeal  eating,  for  the  natural  nour- 
ishment of  the  body,  as  though  the  body  of 
Christ  were  masticated,  digested  in  the  stomach, 
and  converted  into  nutriment  for  our  bodies : 
may  all  such  thoughts  be  far  from  us ;  and  yet 
3 


26  HISTORICAL    INTRODUCTION. 

it  is  a  real  eating,  so  that  with  the  bodily  mouth 
we  receive,  and  partake  of,  not  only  the  bread 
and  the  wine,  but  also  the  body  and  the  blood 
of  the  Lord,  for  the  spiritual  nourishment  of 
our  inward  man,  with  which,  in  this  food,  Christ 
unites  himself."  See  p.  429. 

Again  he  asks  :  "In  what  manner  does  this 
eating  and  drinking  take  place  ?"  Answer 
"  This  is  to  us  incomprehensible,  whence  we 
are  not  to  endeavour  any  further  to  search  out 
what  is  not  revealed  to  us,  nor,  on  the  other 
hand,  to  question  the  divine  omnipotence  and 
truth  as  to  any  thing  of  which  God  assures  us. 
—  But  is  it  possible  that  Christ's  body  can  be 
present  and  partaken  of  at  so  many  places  1  — 
How  this  is  possible  it  is  not  necessary  to  un- 
derstand ;  for  it  is  a  mystery  which  is  above 
our  comprehension,  nevertheless  we  believe 
the  word  of  Him  who  is  the  truth,  and  cannot 
lie."  See  p.  430. 

That  the  patriarchs  of  the  Church  in  America 
adhered  consistently  and  strictly  to  this  evan- 
gelical doctrine,  is  abundantly  demonstrated  by 
unquestionable  evidence.  The  first  Lutheran 
Congregations  in  this  country  were  (vide  Muh- 


HISTORICAL    INTRODUCTION.  27 

lenberg's  Journal,  and  Hallische  Nachrichten) 
established  on  the  basis  of  divine  truth  as 
confessionally  exhibited  in  the  Augustana. 
Through  the  operation  of  external  influences, 
chiefly  Presbyterian,  Puritan  and  Methodistic, 
the  faith  of  the  Church  became  gradually  un- 
settled and  more  and  more  modified,  her  scrip- 
tural view  of  the  Sacraments  vitiated,  and 
eventually  supplanted  by  Zuinglian  notions,  and 
her  usages  neglected,  and  superseded  by  novel 
practices,  so  that,  in  the  progress  of  time,  her 
doctrinal  system  and  her  ritual  were  impercep- 
tibly accommodated  and  conformed  to  the  con- 
fessions and  usages  of  surrounding  commun- 
ions, and  in  the  end  entirely  metamorphosed. 
This  new  state  of  things,  for  a  long  time  irre- 
gular and  chaotic,  was  after  a  while  arranged 
and  organized,  chiefly  through  the  agency  of 
the  Lutheran  Observer  and  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Schmucker,  into  a  mongrel  system,  half  Luthe- 
ran, half  multifariously  otherwise.  But  it  was 
not  long  before  the  leaders  of  this  unchurchly 
movement,  after  publishing  their  novel  views 
in  such  works  as ,  "Why  are  you  a  Lutheran :" 
"Portraiture  of  Lutheranism  :"  "Popular  Theo- 


'2$  HISTORICAL    INTRODUCTION. 

logy,"  &c.  finding  that,  notwithstanding  their 
efforts  in  behalf  of  "American  Lutheranism," 
the  consistent  adherents  of  the  unaltered  Au- 
gustana  were  greatly  multiplying  in  our  land, 
turned  from  their  first  tacit,  then  overt  nega- 
tions, and  their  zealous  system-building,  to  open 
warfare  against  the  distinctive  characteristics 
of  genuine  Lutheranism.  The  Rev.  Dr. 
Schmucker  of  the  the  Gettysburg  Seminary, 
who,  by  his  own  showing  (see  the  first  Ed.  of 
his  translation  of  Storr  and  Flatt's  Theology) 
received  and  defended,  at  the  beginning  of  his 
professorial  career,  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  after  the  effort  to  centralize 
"American  Lutheranism"  by  means  of  the  Ge- 
neral Synod,  in  connecting  himself  actively 
with  the  effort  when  it  was  in  danger  of  sinking, 
employed  it,  at  a  subsequent  period,  in  support 
of  his  later  views,  and  after  exerting  himself 
to  the  utmost  for  the  extension  of  these  views, 
through  the  publication  of  various  writings  and 
the  training  of  young  minds,  has  at  last  stood 
forth  for  years,  aided  by  his  disciples  and  the 
Lutheran  Observer,  as  the  avowed  enemy, 
the  unrelenting  antagonist  of  our  Confessions. 


HISTORICAL    INTRODUCTION.  29 

But,  in  spite  of  all  these  laborious  efforts,  a 
mighty  reaction  against  this  unconfessional  and 
unchurchly  movement  and  system  has  of  late 
years  supervened.  Thoughtful  and  candid 
minds,  perceiving  the  irregularity,  inconsistency 
and  perils  of  our  condition,  grew  weary  and 
sick  of  the  anomalous  position  of  our  Church  in 
America.  Earnest  inquiry,  a  strong  desire, 
produced  by  our  pressing  necessities,  to  possess 
a  distinct  and  definite  confession  to  cling  to 
and  to  avow  before  men,  and  to  have  an  estab- 
lished and  not  ever  tottering,  a  well  ordered 
and  not  ever  confused  and  distracted  ecclesiasti- 
cal home,  in  which  they  may  dwell  in  quietness 
and  safety,  have  led  back  great  numbers  to  the 
only  known  confessional  basis  of  our  Evangeli- 
cal Church.  This  reaction  has,  indeed,  intensi- 
fied the  energy  and  virulence  of  the  antagonistic 
elements ;  but,  in  spite  of  all  opposing  efforts, 
the  change  for  the  better,  the  revolution  in  favour 
of  our  venerable  standards,  is  growing  and 
spreading  apace.  Thus  only  can  our  Church 
in  America  attain  to  unity,  strength,  and  per- 
manently vigorous  vitality.  May  the  Great 
Head  of  the  Church  preside  over  and  guide 


30  HISTORICAL    INTRODUCTION. 

this  auspicious  movement,  and  hasten  on  the 
day  when  all  who  bear  the  name  of  Lutheran 
shall  rally,  with  united  hearts  and  hands,  around 
the  glorious  standards  of  the  first  church  of  the 
Reformation,  the  one  Evangelical  Church. 


SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER 

OF    THE 

LUTHERAN     DOCTRINE 

OF    THE 

LORD'S  SUPPER, 

FOR  a  good  many  years  past  a  great 
deal  has  been  written,  and  in  various  ways 
published,  by  ministers  in  connexion  with 
the  Lutheran  Church  in  America,  from 
which  those  without,  and  Christians  of  other 
denominations,  can  only  draw  one  of  two 
inferences :  either  that  the  Lutheran  is  a 
confessionless  church ;  or  that  her  confession 
is  a  dead  letter — long  since  defunct  and 
buried  in  oblivion,  or  at  best,  existing  only 
as  a  target  to  be  shot  at  or  as  a  starting-point 
for  all  sorts  of  subjective  speculations. 
Indeed,  the  most  recent  exhibitions,  on  the 
part  of  those  who  sustain  this  singular  re- 
lation to  our  standards,  which  are  really  not" 
yet  quite  moribund,  are  calculated  to  pro- 
duce the  impression  abroad,  that  there  is 
about  Lutheranism  nothing  definite  and 
fixed ;  that  Lutheranism  is  a  vague  abstrac- 
31 


32    SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

tion,  having  no  hold  on  men's  minds  or 
hearts  ;  waiting  to  be  rendered  acceptable 
to  this  enlightened  and  progressive  age, 
admitting  and  requiring  indefinite  develop- 
ment, in  accordance  with  the  liberal  ideas, 
and  expanding  views  of  this  highly  intelli- 
gent and  rapidly  advancing  generation. 
We  have  of  late  years,  seen  one  publication 
follow  fast  upon  the  other,  calculated  to 
produce  this  impression  upon  those  who  are 
not  of  our  communion,  and  equally  so  upon 
many  who  worship  in  our  sanctuaries,  but 
who,  from  sundry  causes  not  to  be  here  in- 
vestigated, are  ignorant  of  the  standards, 
the  doctrines,  principles  and  usages  of  the 
first  Church  of  the  Reformation,  —  the 
church  of  their  fathers.  In  vain  do  writers, 
whose  efforts  tend  to  create  such  impres- 
sions, allege  that  the  system  which  they  are 
advocating  is  genuine  Lutheranism.  The 
plea  would  be  summarily  ruled  out  of 
every  court  of  justice,  and  scouted  by 
every  competent  and  impartial  jury.  If 
Lutheranism  be  indeed  a  dogmatic  sys- 
tem, susceptible  of  indefinite  development 
in  all  sorts  of  subjective  directions,  then, 
truly,  it  would  be  time  to  renounce  it  as 


having  no  foundation  on  that  eternal  rock 
of  truth,  the  Word  of  God : — if  it  be  indeed 
a  shifting  quicksand,  never  the  same,  but 
ever  changing  its  shape  and  bearings,  with 
every  tide  of  human  opinion  sweeping  over 
it  wrho  could  maintain  his  foothold  on  it? 
Who  would  venture  to  erect  upon  it  the 
spiritual  dwelling  of  his  sojourn  in  this  mor- 
tal state  ?  But  Lutheranism  is  no  such 
baseless  and  unstable  system — no  such 
ever-variyng,  ever-shifting  sandbank.  We 
deplore  deeply  and  bitterly  these  destruc- 
tive efforts,  not  only  because  we  fervently 
love  the  Church  of  our  Fathers  and  feel  the 
wrongs  heaped  upon  her  as  though  they 
were  done  to  ourselves,  but  because  we 
see  but  too  plainly  whither  all  this  natural- 
ly and  necessarily  tends ;  to  the  multiplica- 
tion of  controversies,  to  the  destruction  of 
harmony  in  feeling  and  action,  to  the  in- 
crease and  perpetuation  of  disunion,  if  not 
eventually  of  something  still  more  earnest- 
ly to  be  deprecated. 

We  have  repeatedly  intended  and  un- 
dertaken to  discuss  the  subject  named  at 
the  head  of  this  article,  and  have  refrained 
from  carrying  our  purpose  into  effect,  mere- 


34    SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

ly  because  we  did  not  wish  rashly  and  pre- 
maturely to  provoke  controversy,  or  to  lay 
ourselves  open  to  the  ready  charge  of  dis- 
tracting the  Church  by  a  needless  agitation 
of  contested  points.  But  silence  on  such 
points  has  ceased  to  be  a  virtue  in  those  who 
are  true  to  the  doctrinal  system  of  our 
Church.  A  war  of  extermination  has  long 
been  carried  on  against  the  distinctive  doc- 
trinal views  of  our  Church,  leaving  those 
who  are  not  willing  to  see  her  standard  pull- 
ed down  and  trodden  in  the  dust,  no  alter- 
native but  to  buckle  on  their  armour,  and 
to  enter  the  lists.  We  dare  not  sit  still,  and 
composedly  regard,  with  cowardly  indiffer- 
ence, the  unceasing  assaults  made  upon  the 
articles  of  our  faith. 

The  second  article  of  the  Evang.  Review 
for  April,  1851,  presents  a  mournful  exhi- 
bition of  hostility  to  our  evangelical  stand- 
ards. The  writer  of  that  article  here  prom- 
inently displays  his  fixed  aversion  to  the 
Lutheran  view  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as 
set  forth  in  the  Agustana  and  the  subse- 
quent Symbolical  Books.  Although  we 
earnestly  hope  that  abler  pens  than  ours 
will  undertake  the  defence  of  this  so  per- 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUP'PER.        35 

tinaciously  contested  view,  we  are  im- 
pelled, by  a  sense  of  duty,  to  say  some- 
thing in  vindication  of  a  doctrine  which 
we  hold  sacred  and  precious  ;  but  ere 
we  proceed  to  the  direct  discussion  of  the 
subject  itself,  we  would  yet  premise  a  few 
remarks  with  reference  to  an  assertion 
made  in  that  same  article  just  specified 
Dr.  S.  there  asserts,  that  Luther  had  reced 
ed  from  the  doctrine  of  "the  ubiquity  or 
omnipresence  of  Christ's  body,  and  that 
therefore  he  was  himself  no  symbolic  Lv.-- 
theran."  For  this  assertion  no  authority 
is  given.  Now  we  frankly  acknowledge 
that  we  are  utterly  ignorant  of  any  other 
foundation  for  this  allegation,  than  the 
well-known  fact  that,  at  the  Marburg  col- 
loquium, Luther,  in  his  desire  to  promote 
or  preserve  the  peace  of  the  Church,  did  at 
one  time  concede  that  Christ's  body  was 
circumscribed,  whilst  all  who  know  this 
fact,  also  know,  that  the  concession  was 
retracted  almost  as  soon  as  made,  as  a 
measure  of  compromise  incompatible  with 
his  honest  convictions.  So  much  for  Lu- 
ther's being  no  symbolic  Lutheran.  But 
if  this  assertion  be  based  upon  the  story  so. 


36    SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

oft  repeated  and  only  recently  again  reite- 
rated in  Henry's  Life  of  Calvin,  that 
Luther  had,  shortly  before  his  death, 
changed  his  view  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
we  have  only  to  say,  that  this  has  not  the 
slightest  historical  foundation,  and  is  utter- 
ly and  notoriously  false.  He  is,  indeed, 
reported  to  have,  a  short  time  before  his 
death,  admitted  that  he  might  have  gone  to 
too  great  lengths  in  his  disputes  concern- 
ing the  Lord's  Supper,  in  the  severity  with 
which  he  treated  his  opponents ;  but  that 
his  own  views  had  undergone  a  change  he 
no  where  intimates. 

In  the  above-mentioned  article  of  Dr.  S. 
a  good  deal  is  said  about  Luther's  protest- 
ing "against  the  practice  of  designating 
the  Church  of  the  Reformation  by  his 
name,"  and  "  against  investing  his  writings 
with  binding  authority  on  his  successors." 
But  of  these  protests  an  improper  use  is 
here  made.  So  far  as  the  first  point  is 
concerned,  the  title :  "Church  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession,"  is  quite  as  acceptable, 
and  in  some  places  nearly  as  current,  as 
that  of  "the  Lutheran  Church:"  in  Hun- 
gary indeed,  the  former  is  the  only  appel- 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.        37 

lative  allowed  by  government  to  be  used. 
And  as  respects  the  second  particular,  the 
Doctor  knows  very  well,  that  Luther's  pro- 
test has  reference  only  to  his  private  writ- 
ings, and  not  to  those  which  had,  by  special 
command,  and  with  the  aid  of  other  learned 
and  godly  men,  been  drawn  up  for  the 
benefit  of  the  Church,  for  the  establishment 
and  defence,  the  exhibition  and  diffusion 
of  her  faith.  That  with  these  Melanch- 
thon  was  only  too  much  disposed  to  tam- 
per, is  well  known,  so  that  Luther  one  day 
seriously  reproved  him  for  it,  adding  that 
these  writings  were  not  private  property,  as 
they  belonged  to  the  Church,  which  had 
received  and  owned  them  as  the  exponents 
of  her  faith. 

But,  we  proceed  to  the  subject  more  im- 
mediately in  hand,  the  real  presence  of  our 
Saviour's  glorified  humanity  in  the  Sacra- 
ment of  the  Lord's  Supper;  a  doctrine 
which,  together  with  those  with  which  it  is 
most  intimately  connected,  stands,  as  we 
shall  have  occasion  incidentally  to  show, 
in  the  most  momentous  and  vital  relation 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement.  Dr. 
Schmucker  gives,  on  p.  249,  of  his  Pop- 
4 


38    SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

ular  Theology,  what  he  considers  a  correct 
statement  of  the  Lutheran  view  of  this  sub- 
ject. That  his  statement  is  imperfect,  every 
symbolic  Lutheran  will  perceive  at  a  glance. 
But  we  accept  it  for  the  present,  as  suffi- 
ciently accurate  and  explicit  upon  the  point 
which  here  more  particularly  claims  our 
attention,  and  as  presenting  in  itself  a 
satisfactory  answer  to  sundry  idle  objec- 
tions frequently  made  to  the  doctrine.  His 
words  are  as  follows ;  "  The  bread  and  wine 
remain  in  all  respects  unchanged ;  but  the 
invisible,  glorified  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
are  also  actually  present  at  the  celebration 
of  the  Eucharist,  and  exert  an  influence  on 
all  those  who  receive  the  bread  and  wine  ; 
not  indeed  present  in  that  form  nor  with 
those  properties  which  belonged  to  the 
Saviour's  body  on  earth,  such  as  visibility, 
tangibility,  &c.,  for  these  it  no  longer  pos- 
sesses, but  with  the  new  and  elevated  pro- 
perties which  now  belong  to  its  glorified 
state." 

Although  we  may,  ere  we  conclude,  give, 
in  a  few  words,  what  we  conceive  to  be  a 
just  exhibition  of  the  view  taken  by  the 
Church,  from  the  earliest  times,  of  the 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.         39 

Sacred  Supper,  and  now  held  by  the  Luthe- 
ran Church,  our  present  business  is,  to 
notice  and  briefly  to  answer  sundry  objec- 
tions, which,  though  a  hundred  times  re- 
futed, are  again  and  again  brought  forward, 
with  as  much  confidence  as  if  they  were 
perfectly  valid  and  unanswerable.  We  be- 
gin with  a  few  observations  upon  what 
will,  of  course,  not  be  denied,*  viz.:  that 
the  view  of  the  Eucharist  which,  though 
found  in  the  writings  of  the  earliest  Fathers, 
it  is  now  usual  to  designate  as  the  Lutheran, 
is  based  upon  the  literal  interpretation  of 
the  words  of  institution. — Those  who  deny 
the  correctness  of  this  view  maintain,  that 
our  Saviour's  words  are  to  be  regarded  as 
figurative.  And  we  are  accustomed  to  see 
it  confidently  affirmed,  that  the  expressions 
employed  by  the  Saviour,  in  instituting 
this  most  solemn  ordinance,  come  under 
the  same  category  as  these:  "I  am  the 
door  :"  "I  am  the  vine  :"  "I  am  the  good 
Shepherd,"  &c.  &c.  To  this  view  of  the 
subject  there  are  many  serious  objections  : 

*  This  is  denied  by  Dr.  Scbmucker,  in  the 
article  which  we  received  after  this  was  written, 
and  which  is  hereinafter  answered  :  he  calls  Lu- 
ther s  "The  first  figurative  interpretation." 


40    SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

we  shall  state  only  a  few.  And  first,  the 
instances  just  cited,  and  many  others  of 
the  same  character,  occur  in  discourses  in 
which  our  Saviour  was  communicating  im- 
portant instruction,  and  illustrating  truth, 
in  that  parabolic  or  highly  figurative  mode 
of  expression,  which  he  so  often  adopted ; 
and  in  these  instances  there  was  no  danger 
of  his  being  misunderstood. — But  on  the 
occasion  of  his  last  solemn  passover  with 
his  disciples,  he  was  not  teaching,  not 
communicating  instruction,  in  no  sense  of 
the  word  preaching,  but  he  was  appointing 
a  sacred  rite,  instituting,  for  all  coming 
time,  the  most  holy  of  Christian  ordinan- 
ces ;  an  occasion  therefore  on  which,  it 
strikes  us,  figurative  language  would  have 
been  singularly  out  of  place.  We  trust 
that  we  are  not  presumptuous  in  supposing, 
that  our  Lord  would,  in  a  transaction  like 
the  present,  most  earnestly  and  solicitously 
seek  to  avoid  using  any  language  capable 
of  the  least  misconception,  or  misconstruc- 
tion, (except  it  were  wilful),  and  therefore 
free  from  the  slightest  ambiguity.  We 
are,  of  course,  not  authorized  to  judge 
what  was,  or  what  was  not,  proper  to  be 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORDS    SUPPER.        41 

said  or  done  by  our  Lord;  but,  at  the 
same  time,  we  are  not  to  put  constructions 
on  his  words,  which,  departing  from  their 
literal  meaning,  their  direct  and  plain  sense, 
are  irreconcilable  with  that  perfect  wisdom 
which  characterized  all  his  proceedings. 
And  we  are  compelled  by  common  sense, 
and  by  our  reverence  for  Him  who  "  spake 
as  never  man  spake,"  to  regard  the  pre- 
sent occasion  as  one  which  preeminently 
demanded  the  utmost  definiteness,  or  pre- 
cision of  language ;  so  that  if  he  should  be 
thereafter  misunderstood  or  misinterpreted, 
it  could  only  be  by  rejecting  the  simple, 
literal  meaning  of  his  words,  by  distorting 
his  language,  and  putting  upon  it  an  arbi- 
trary and  unwarranted  construction.  If  the 
Church  has  been  distracted  and  divided  by 
controversies  respecting  the  nature  of  the 
Holy  Supper,  let  not  its  Holy  Founder  be 
made  responsible  for  these  lamentable  re- 
sults, by  representing  his  direct  and  simple 
language  as  being  so  infelicitous,  so  obscure- 
ly figurative,  as  naturally  and  necessarily 
to  give  rise  to  conflicting  views.  Take  him 
as  he  speaks,  and  the  whole  difficulty  van- 
ishes. It  is  well  known,  that  here  was 
4* 


42    SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

Luther's  strongest  foothold,  in  all  his  dis- 
cussions and  controversies  concerning  this 
important  subject.  He  could  never  be  in- 
duced to  depart  one  hair's  breadth  from  the 
only  construction  of  which,  according  to 
the  simplest  principles  of  interpretation, 
our  Saviour's  words  will  admit;  because, 
as  he  declared,  the  text  was  too  stringent, 
and  left  him  no  choice. 

But  again :  the  instances  referred  to,  and 
so  often  cited  as  coming  under  the  same 
category,  and  as  showing  how  the  words 
of  the  institution  are  to  be  understood,  are 
not  by  any  means  parallel.  It  is  contended 
that  the  words,  "this  is  my  body  :"  "this  is 
my  blood :"  are  to  be  thus  explained  :  "  this 
denotes  or  signifies  my  body,"  &c.  If  this 
be  correct,  and  if  the  words  of  institution 
be  in  the  same  manner  figurative  as  those 
figurative  expressions  which  have  been 
quoted,  then  it  will  be  proper  to  construe 
these  in  the  same  way  in  which  it  is  pro- 
posed to  construe  the  words  before  us, 
thus  :  I  signify  the  door :  I  signify  the 
vine  :  I  signify  the  light  of  the  world : 
I  signify  the  good  shepherd.  It  needs  not 


that  we  should  labour  to  show  how  prepos- 
terous this  would  be. 

There  is  nothing  more  easy,  nothing  that 
men  are  more  ready  to  do,  in  explaining 
passages  of  Scripture  that  do  not  accord 
with  their  notions  and  theories,  than  to  set 
up  the  plea  that  the  language  is  figurative. 
It  is  in  this  way  that  Unitarians  get  rid  of 
the  Divinity  of  Christ :  they  hold  the  lan- 
guage of  Scripture  bearing  upon  this  point 
to  be  strongly  metaphorical,  or,  more  strictly 
speaking,  that  figure  of  speech  termed  hyper- 
bole, and  denoting  no  more  than  a  very 
eminent  degree  of  that  divinity,  which  they 
ascribe  to  mankind  in  general.  It  is  well 
known,  that  in  this  way  also  the  Universa- 
lists  get  rid  of  the  doctrine  of  future  and 
eternal  punishments.  We  need  not  cite 
any  more  instances  to  show  how  cautious 
we  ought  to  be  in  accepting  such  explana- 
tions, and  how  dangerous  it  is  to  apply  the 
figurative  theory,  except  in  cases  where  the 
language  is  so  palpably  metaphorical,  that 
it  is  impossible  to  understand  it  in  any  other 
way.  That  the  words  employed  by  our 
Saviour  in  instituting  the  Sacrament  of  his 


44    SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

Supper,  present  a  case  of  this  kind,  has  never 
yet  been  shown  to  the  satisfaction  of  more 
than  one-fourth  of  Christendom ;  and  until 
those,  who  maintain  that  the  language  here 
is  figurative,  advance  better  reasons  in  sup- 
port of  their  theory  than  we  have  yet  seen, 
we  must  persist  in  peremptorily  rejecting 
it.  In  the  case  of  the  Popish  doctrine  of 
transubstantiation  the  thing  is  perfectly 
clear,  because  here  certain  substances  which 
are  obviously  one  thing,  are  represented  to 
be  actually  quite  another  thing.  But  with 
this  absurdity  the  Lutheran  view  of  the  real 
presence  of  Christ's  glorified  humanity  has 
evidently  no  connexion  whatever.  We  know 
very  well  that  Papists,  who,  though  they 
imagine  that  they  are  most  literal  in  their 
interpretation,  are  not  so  at  all  in  reality, 
have  been  obliged  to  admit,  that  the  cup  is 
used  figuratively  for  its  contents.  According 
to  their  view  of  the  whole  subject,  this  ad- 
mission was  unavoidable  :  but  according  to 
the  Lutheran  view  it  is  perfectly  immaterial 
whether  we  adopt  it  or  not,  because  we  do 
not  believe  in  any  transmutation  or  tran- 
substantiation at  all.  And  to  our  real  view 
of  this  subject  we  are  constrained  to  call 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.        45 

the  reader's  particular  attention,  because 
writers  on  the  opposite  side  are  wont  studi- 
ously to  conceal  it,  or  to  express  themselves 
in  such*  a  manner  as  to  create  the  impression, 
that  we  are  all  but  papistical  transubstantia- 
tionists.  We  hold,  that  it  is  in  the  Sacra- 
ment itself,  in  the  solemn  celebration  of  this 
sacred  ordinance,  that  Christians  enjoy  the 
actual  presence  of  the  glorified  Redeemer, 
and  that  the  unchanged  bread  and  wine, 
received  by  the  communicant,  are  not  only 
the  outward  visible  signs  of  an  inward  spirit- 
ual grace  ;  but,  connected  with  the  word 
and  promise  of  God,  the  vehicles  through 
whose  instrumentality  the  divine  Saviour 
communicates  himself  to  those  who  partake 
of  them.  Hence  the  real  presence  of  Christ 
in  the  Eucharist,  as  believed  by  Lutherans, 
is  frequently  designated  as  a  "sacramental 
presence."  That  this  view  is  founded  on  a 
far  more  literal  interpretation  of  the  words 
of  the  institution,  one  philologically  more 
correct,  than  is  that  of  the  Papists,  it  is  not 
difficult  to  show.  Luther  himself  very  well 
knew  what  an  advantage  he  had  here  ;  and 
he  did  not  fail  to  make  good  use  of  it,  treat- 
ing with  merited  indignation  and  scorn 


46    SCRIPTURAL   CHARACTER   OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

Carlstadt's  perversions  of  the  grammatical 
structure  of  the  sentences  containing  the 
words  of  institution. 

The  point,  which  we  have  here  particu- 
larly in  view,  is  this.  The  English  version 
of  the  N.  T.  reads  thus :  "This  is  my  body :" 
"This  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Testament," 
&c.  The  translation  is  perfectly  correct ; 
but,  as  the  demonstrative  has  in  English 
no  gender,  it  leaves  room  for  a  misappre- 
hension, which  might  be  avoided  by  circum- 
locution. As  we  have  reason  to  look  for 
the  utmost  precision  in  the  words  employed 
on.  the  occasion  of  such  an  institution,  the 
fact  that  our  Lord  does  not  say  euros  o  apr^ 
&c.  This  bread  is  my  body,  &c.,  is  cer- 
tainly not  to  be  considered  as  accidental  or 
unimportant.  And  when  he  says :  r£ro  *V<  T« 
tra/uM  p.** :  and  rSro  -yeip  Ift  TO  ouf4.cn  pu&,  we  are 
by  no  means  satisfied  that  this  is  merely 
because  it  is  usual  in  all  languages  to  use 
the  demonstrative  in  the  neuter  gender,  in 
pointing  to  an  object  that  is  directly  before 
us,  and  concerning  which  we  are  about  to 
to  say  something.  We  conceive  the  T^T* 
to  be  used  with  wise  design,  in  calling 
the  attention  of  his  disciples  to  that  which 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.         47 

is  bestowed  upon  them,  in  the  act  of  giving 
them  the  bread :  to  the  sacramental  gift 
bestowed  in  connexion  with,  and  instru- 
mentally  through,  the  gift  of  the  bread. 
Bengel's  exposition  of  the  words,  which  ac- 
cords with  this  view,  and  embodies  it,  has 
met  with  general  acceptance:  "hoc  quod 
vos  sumere  jubeo,"  &c.  And  this  vigilant 
caution  of  the  Saviour  to  guard  against 
misapprehension,  appears  still  more  plainly 
in  his  not  afterwards  saying :  OVTOS  o  oivos^  &c. 
but,  if  the  words  of  Luke  should  be  prefer- 
red as  the  most  full  and  precise :  "  T^TO  TO 

Trorr'ptov  j  Y.O.W"  &C.       That    TroTijpiov  (cup)  is 

here  employed  figuratively  for  its  contents, 
does  not,  .as  we  have  already  remarked, 
concern  us  at  all,  as  it  does  not  affect  our 
position  in  the  least ;  for  we  are  not  de- 
fending the  transubstantiation  of  Papists, 
but  the  mysterious,  sacramental  presence 
taught  in  accordance  with  Scripture,  by 
ihe  Lutheran  Church,  which  believes  the 
Saviour  to  say :  That  which  I  give  you  in 
presenting  you  this  cup,  that  which  ye  re- 
-ceive  in  drinking  its  contents,  is  my  blood, 
is  the  fulness  of  the  blessing  of  the  New 
Testament  [covenant]  in  my  blood. 


48    SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

Again,  the  Sacred  Supper  of  the  New 
Covenant  has  come,  with  all  its  substantial 
realities,  into  the  place  of  the  passover  un- 
der the  Old.  The  passover  stood  in  a  peculiar 
and  mysterious  relation  to  a  great  histori- 
cal event,  which  it  afterwards  symbolically 
shadowed  forth,  and  commemorated.  The 
event  itself  was  typical  of  the  greater  de- 
liverance which  we  owe  to  Christ  our  pass- 
over,  sacrificed  for  us ;  and  the  celebration 
of  the  passover  pointed  to  that  sacred  insti- 
tution, in  which  believers  feast  sacramen- 
tally,  in  a  manner  mysterious  and  inexplica- 
ble, upon  the  body  broken  and  the  blood 
shed  for  the  salvation  of  their  souls.  In 
the  passover  we  have  the  shadow,  in  the 
Eucharist  the  reality ;  and  this  same  typical 
relation  of  the  former  to  the  latter  justifies 
the  view  which  we  take,  viz.  that  the  TXTO 
is  to  be  understood  to  mean :  this  which  I 
now  give  you ;  or :  this  which  I  now  appoint 
and  institute  to  be  partaken  of  by  you,  and 
all  who  shall  believe  through  your  word. 
If  we  reject  this  view  of  the  subject,  we 
lose  the  actual,  positive,  objective  reality 
of  the  Christian  Sacrament,  as  distinguished 
from  the  typical  rite  of  the  old  covenant. 


DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER.    49 

Not  to  prolong  too  much  this  part  of  our 
discussion,  we  will  only  add,  that  the  pas- 
sages which  are  so  confidently  appealed  to 
as  illustrating,  and  even  proving,  the  figu- 
rative character  of  our  Saviour's  language 
in  instituting  his  Holy  Supper,  are  in  yet 
another  respect  unsatisfactory:  they  are 
figurative  only  in  a  very  modified  and  limit- 
ed sense  :  expressions  which  would  apply 
in  a  very  narrow,  and  in  a  highly  meta- 
phorical sense  to  ordinary  human  beings, 
are  applicable  to  him  with  a  breadth  and 
comprehensiveness  of  scope,  with  a  reality, 
depth,  height  and  force  of  meaning,  which 
they  but  faintly  express.  Thus  it  is  a  strong 
metaphor  to  say,  that  a  distinguished  states- 
man is  the  pillar  of  the  state,  or  that  some 
gifted  politician  is  the  soul  of  his  party. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  when  Christ  calls 
himself  the  light  of  the  world,  the  way  and  the 
truth  and  the  life,  the  door,  the  vine,  the  good 
shepherd,  &c.  there  is  a  vast  and  unsearch- 
able and  unfigurative  reality  in  these  repre- 
sentations, which  sets  the  widest  reach  of 
metaphor  at  nought.  He  is  the  religious  and 
moral  light  of  the  world,  its  central  and  only 
Sun : — there  is  no  door  or  way  of  access  to 
5 


50    SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

God  but  himself,  and  through  him,  actually 
and  exclusively,  we  come  to  the  Father :  He 
is  the  truth,  its  impersonation,  imbodiment 
and  essence ;  and  whatsoever  in  the  reli- 
gious and  moral  world  does  not  emanate 
from  him,  point  and  lead  to  him,  is  not  truth : 
He  is  life,  its  very  author,  source  and  ful- 
ness, and  out  of  him  there  is  no  life ;  nothing 
but  death  dark  and  dismal.  It  needs  not 
that  we  should  dwell  on  other  instances, 
showing  that  even  where  the  language  used 
by  the  Saviour  of  himself  may,  in  a  certain 
limited  sense,  be  regarded  as  figurative,  the 
words  have  a  literal  force  of  reality,  which 
the  loftiest  figures,  into  which  the  boldest 
fancy  could  mould  human  language,  cannot 
adequately  describe :  and  if  so,  how  idle  is 
it  to  talk  of  figurative  language  in  connexion 
with  that  solemn  institution,  into  which  the 
obscurity  of  metaphor  can  only  introduce 
inextricable  confusion,  as  the  writings  of 
all  who  adopt  the  figurative  theory  so  amply 
and  lamentably  prove.  Taking  the  person- 
age who  spoke,  and  the  occasion  on  which 
he  spoke,  together,  we  conceive  all  figura- 
tive language  to  be  utterly  and  totally  out 
of  the  question. 


The  next  objection  made  to  our  view  of 
the  Eucharist,  which  we  would  briefly  no- 
tice, is,  that  it  is  a  novel  doctrine  —  a  doc- 
trine invented  in  later  times.  That  the 
Popish  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  is  com- 
paratively modern  ;  that,  indeed,  it  did  not 
assume  its  present  form,  until  it  was,  in  the 
ninth  century,  distinctly  thus  stated  by 
Paschasius  Rhadbert,  is  undoubtedly  true  : 
evidence  of  its  having  been  rejected  by  the 
early  Fathers  can  be  found  collected,  in 
ample  detail,  in  Bishop  Burnet's  Exposition 
of  the  XXXIX.  Articles.  But  what  have 
Lutherans  to  do  with  this  Popish  dogma  ? 
We  notice  it  in  this  connexion  only,  because 
those  who  oppose  the  Lutheran  doctrine 
concerning  the  Sacrament,  are,  from  mo- 
tives best  known  to  themselves,  perpetually 
dragging  the  absurdities  of  Papistry  into 
their  discussions,  and  bringing  them  into 
some  sort  of  connection  with  the  views  set 
forth  in  our  Confessions.  We  might  as  well 
bring  in  and  belabour  the  doctrines  of  Zer- 
duscht  or  Kongfutse,  for  the  purpose  of 
casting  odium  upon  the  Anxious  Bench. 
That  the  doctrine  concerning  the  Lord's 
Supper,  which  is  held  by  the  Lutheran 


52    SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

Church  is  modern  —  that  it  was  either  not 
known,  or  offensive,  to  the  early  Church, 
is  not  true  ;  and  although,  as  we  have  on 
a  former  occasion  distinctly  declared,  we  do 
not  ascribe  to  the  Fathers  any  authority  to 
define  and  settle,  for  all  subsequent  ages, 
the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  we  regard,  and 
must  regard  and  believe  them,  as  competent 
and  true  witnesses  concerning  the  common 
faith  and  practice  of  the  primitive  Church. 
But  on  the  entire  point  here  at  issue  we  do 
not  intend  to  expatiate  at  any  length  :  we 
shall  content  ourselves  with  translating  the 
following  short  passage  from  Stier's  Com- 
mentary on  the  Discourses  of  our  Lord, 
Vol.  VI.  p.  161.  "The  testimony  of  the 
Fathers,  from  Ignatius,  Justin,  and  Irenseus 
downward,  is  known  to  the  learned.  In 
opposition  to  the  opinions  of  heretics  the 
ofMfoytiv  [unanimous  testimony,  TR.]  of  the 
Church  is  clear  and  decided  :  "TJ 

o-atpxat    etvatt   TS  6-6>TJ)po$  ypav  'lq<r&  XpifQ  ryv 
q/aav    7C<x.%x<rx.i^  jjv  rtj  %pt)r<>T))Tt  o 

They  know  and  confidently  tes- 


*  "  That  the  Eucharist  is  the  flesh  of  our  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ,  which  suffered  for  our  sins,  and  which, 
through  his  goodness,  the  Father  raised"  —  i.  e.  from 
the  dead. 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.        53 


tify  :      "*Oa    yctp    u$  XOIMV  ce,proi  ov 

TetuToc.  hst/HfictvofArv  —  ixsivK^rx  ra,p>co7roiii§evTio<;'li)(rov 

xau  a-os.py.ct,  x,oti  a.\u.at,  loiou^^vi^y  stvoti^*     To  CX- 

plain  away  this  xa^  Wr/«  [common  faith]  of 
the  Church  from  the  beginning,  is  sophistry  ; 
and  to  contradict  it,  from  a  conceit  of  su- 
perior wisdom,  is,  for  that  very  reason,  at 
least  suspicious."  On  a  subject  of  this  kind 
we  do  not  consider  the  speculations  of  mo- 
dern theologians,  however  vastly  learned  or 
wonderfully  enlightened,  worth  a  rush,  in 
comparison  with  the  doctrinal  views  of  those 
who  lived  and  wrote  in  the  age  immediately 
succeeding  that  of  the  apostles,  from  whom 
their  knowledge  of  Christian  doctrine  was 
directly  derived. 

We  proceed  now  to  examine,  as  briefly 

*  "We  do  not  receive  these  as  common  bread 
or  a  common  drink  —  we  have  been  taught  that  they 
are  both  the  flesh  and  the  blood  of  that  same  Jesus 
who  was  made  flesh." 

By  this  the  early  Fathers  meant  no  such  thing  as 
transubstantiation.  We  have  already  stated  where 
a  great  number  of  citations  from  their  writings  may 
be  found  collected,  showing  that  they  repudiated 
the  doctrine  which  the  Romish  Church  afterwards 
embraced.  They  could  then  have  held  none  other 
than  the  Lutheran  view. 
5* 


54    SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

as  possible,  an  argument  which  is  constantly 
used,  and  very  much  relied  upon,  as  quite 
conclusive  against  the  doctrine  of  our  Con- 
fessions concerning  the  Sacrament  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.  This  doctrine,  it  is  con- 
tended, is  contrary  to  all  experience,  and 
utterly  at  variance  with  the  laws  of  matter, 
—the  laws  which  govern  bodily  existences, 
and  confine  each  distinct  body  to  some  par- 
ticular space  or  locality.  With  respect  to 
the  first  point,  the  contrariety  of  our  doc- 
trine to  experience,  we  do  not  think  it  worth 
while  to  say  much,  as  it  is  of  very  little 
moment.  Every  well  educated  man  knows 
that  this  is  Hume's  argument  against  our 
Lord's  miracles — against  the  possibility  of 
miracles.  The  futility  of  his  premises  or 
general  principles  has  been  demonstrated, 
and  the  rottenness  of  his  argument  fully 
exposed,  in  a  variety  of  dissertations  written 
by  grave  and  able  men;  and  archbishop 
Whately  has  effectually  exposed  his  falla- 
cies, and  held  them  up  to  the  ridicule  and 
scorn  which  they  deserve,  in  his  celebrated 
work  entitled :  "  Historic  Doubts  relative  to 
Napoleon  Bonaparte."  Theologians  had 
better  be  careful  how  they  avail  themselves 


DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER.    55 

of  modes  of  reasoning  adopted  by  infidels, 
when  they  seek  to  discredit  doctrines,  which 
a  great  part  of  Christendom  find  in  the 
Scriptures,  but  which  are  irreconcilable  with 
their  subjective  views — their  own  theories. 
For  the  past  experience  of  mankind  we 
would  not  give  a  groat,  when  it  comes  in 
conflict  with  any  thing  revealed  in  the  word 
of  Him  who  has  made  all  things,  and  knows 
all  things. 

To  this  argument  about  human  expe- 
rience, the  animus  of  the  present  age  is  not 
very  favourable ;  for  the  discoveries  in  phy- 
sical science,  and  the  countless  inventions 
in  all  the  mechanical  arts,  which  have,  for 
many  years  past,  been  astonishing  and  re- 
volutionizing the  world,  have  long  since 
turned  all  implicit  reliance  upon  the  past 
experience  of  mankind  most  unceremoni- 
ously out  of  doors  ;  and  there  we  shall  leave 
it,  to  be  condoled  with  by  those  who  regard 
it  with  sympathy. 

But  the  other  point  deserves  a  more  ex- 
tended notice,  though  we  do  not  think  it 
will  be  difficult  to  show,  that  it  has  no 
greater  value  than  the  one  which  we  have 
just  considered. — There  is,  then,  no  objec- 


56    SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

tion  more  frequently  and  confidently  urged 
against  the  Lutheran  view  of  the  Eucharist 
than  this,  that  it  contradicts  the  evidence 
of  our  senses,  and  the  universal  observation 
of  mankind,  by  which  it  is  fully  ascertained, 
that  a  body  cannot  be  in  more  than  one 
place  at  a  time.  Now,  that  this  is  entirely 
true,  and  that  this  objection  is  perfectly 
valid,  in  respect  of  the  ordinary  bodies  or 
substances  belonging  to  this  terrestrial  globe, 
this  temporal,  mundane  economy,  is  unhesi- 
tatingly admitted  ;  although  there  are  even 
here,  as  we  shall  see,  some  startling  pheno- 
mena not  a  little  perplexing  to  positive 
generalizes.  Nor  do  we  doubt,  that  bodies 
or  substances,  such  as  we  are  conversant 
with,  are  subject  to  the  same  law,  in  what- 
ever part  of  God's  universe  they  may  be 
found.  But  this  does  not  prove,  that  there 
may  not  be  corporeal,  substantial  existences 
of  a  much  higher  order,  and  subject  to  far 
other  laws,  than  those  which  come  under 
our  observation.  It  seems  to  us  in  the  last 
degree  impertinent  and  presumptuous  for 
the  tenants  of  this  little  globe,  this  speck 
in  the  vast  universe,  confidently  to  assert 
that  the  laws  which  govern  their  existence, 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.        57 

and  the  position  and  movements  of  the 
bodies  which  surround  them,  must  be  the 
same  throughout  the  immeasurable  realms 
of  creation.  It  is  perfectly  clear  from 
Scripture,  that  angelic  beings  either  have 
bodies,  or  have  often  assumed  them  for 
special  purposes  ;  and  all  (we  believe  with- 
out exception)  the  angelic  appearances  re- 
lated in  the  Bible  clearly  prove,  that  the 
laws  which  govern  their  presence  and  move- 
ments are  totally  different  from  those  to 
which  we  are  subject.  And,  in  view  of  all 
this,  it  certainly  does  not  become  us  to  as- 
sert, that,  in  devising  and  ordaining  the 
order  of  things  prevailing  on  earth,  or 
throughout  our  solar  system,  the  Almighty 
has  exhausted  his  power  of  invention  and 
design .  It  would  be  preposterous  arrogance 
to  assert,  that  other  regions  of  the  universe 
may  not  be  subject  to  physical  laws,  the 
very  reverse  of  those  which  prevail  on  our 
sphere  of  action.  And  although  all  this  is 
mere  speculation,  it  is,  at  all  events,  evident 
that  to  elevate  the  evidence  of  our  senses, 
or  universal  human  observation  into  a  uni- 
versal law  for  the  entire  creation,  is  non- 
sense ;  especially  when  we  are  certain  that 


58    SCRIPTURAL   CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

beings  belonging  to  a  higher  economy,  and 
coming  frequently,  perhaps  being  con- 
stantly, in  contact  with  human  affairs,  obey 
far  other  laws  than  those  which  govern  the 
grosser  elements  of  our  nature. 

But  letting  all  this  pass,  wre  remark 
again,  that  the  evidence  of  our  senses,  or 
the  universal  observation  of  mankind,  is 
trustworthy  and  valuable  only  as  far  as  it 
goes,  which,  in  some  directions,  is  certainly 
not  very  far.  For  all  the  ordinary  practical 
purposes  of  life  its  availability  is  perfect,  and 
its  value  inappreciable.  But  let  it  be  consid- 
ered, that  even  within  the  sphere  of  daily  in- 
spection and  inquiry  it  encounters  mysteries, 
which  are  as  utterly  inexplicable  as  the  doc- 
trine which  we  are  discussing.  Let  it  be  re- 
membered, that  in  numberless  instances,  the 
evidence  of  our  senses,  or  the  universal  ob- 
servation of  mankind,  bears  witness  only 
of  undeniable  facts,  whose  rationale  to  as- 
certain, whose  mode  of  being  to  discover 
and  define,  is  utterly  beyond  the  reach  of 
human  capacity.  There  are  facts  in  natural 
history  and  chemistry,  which,  however 
clearly  ascertained  as  facts,  no  human  in- 
tellect can,  or  ever  will,  understand  or  ex- 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.         59 

plain,  except,  perhaps,  amid  the  light  of 
the  future  world.  And  some  of  these  are 
isolated  things,  standing  solitary  and  alone, 
having  no  analogies  in  the  wide  compass 
of  nature,  defying  our  senses  to  discover 
any  thing  like  them  anywhere  else,  ap- 
pealing to  universal  observation  for  their 
utter  singularity,  flatly  contradicting  all  col- 
lateral experience,  and  refusing  to  bestow 
upon  the  acutest  sagacity,  and  the  keenest 
scrutiny,  even  the  minutest  spark  of  in- 
formation respecting  their  real  nature,  or 
mode  of  being.  And  do  we  therefore  ever 
dream  of  denying  such  facts  ? 

We  would  scorn  to  employ  the  sophistry 
which  is  so  common  in  discussions  of  this 
kind.  Let  it  not,  therefore,  be  supposed, 
that  we  are  urging  these  considerations  with 
the  design  of  producing,  any  where,  the 
impression,  that  they  have  any  direct  bear- 
ing upon  the  great  subject  of  the  present 
treatise.  We  present  them  merely  in  order 
to  showr,  that  the  appeal  to  our  senses,  and 
the  universal  observation  of  mankind,  must 
go  for  nothing  in  a  case,  which  lies  confess- 
edly beyond  the  scope  of  our  senses,  and 
could  not  be  searched  out,  if  all  the  power 


OU    SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

of  observation  possessed  by  the  whole  hu- 
man race,  were  concentrated  into  one  in- 
tensely keen  and  piercingly  scrutinizing 
gaze ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  even  the 
common  material  world  offers  to  our  inspec- 
tion countless  facts  and  phenomena  of  extra- 
ordinary interest,  the  real  nature  of  which 
our  senses  strive  in  vain  to  penetrate  and 
ascertain.  And  here  we  wish  to  enter  our 
solemn  protest  against  the  practice  so  often 
resorted  to,  of  applying  the  so-called  laws 
of  nature,  or  of  matter,  to  facts  or  doctrines 
revealed  in  the  Word  of  God  respecting  a 
higher  economy  than  ours,  and  then  deter- 
mining, according  to  these  laws,  (in  other 
words,  according  to  the  evidence  of  our 
senses,  or  of  universal  observation),  in  what 
manner  these  facts  or  doctrines  are  to  be 
explained.  What,  we  would  ask,  are  the 
laws  of  nature  or  of  matter  ?  Are  they  un- 
alterable statutes,  imposed  by  nature  (who 
is  nature?)  upon  herself?  Are  they  laws, 
evolved  by  matter  out  of  itself,  and  deter- 
mining the  nature  or  mode  of  its  existence 
and  its  movements,  with  a  precision  and  a 
stringency  that  admit  of  no  exceptions  or 
changes  ?  Have  these  laws  so  much  even 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.         61 

as  a  shadow  of  existence,  independent  of 
the  will,  of  the  originating  and  sustaining 
power  of  Him  who  alone  did  and  could 
ordain  them  ?  If  he  should  will  their  dis- 
continuance or  abrogation;  nay,  if  he 
ceased  to  will  that  they  shall  continue  to 
exist  and  to  operate,  would  they  not  in- 
stantaneously cease  to  be,  as  utterly  as  if 
they  had  never  been  ?  And  can  He  not  then 
change  or  annihilate  them  at  pleasure  ?  Or 
are  they  green  withes,  with  which  the  Al- 
mighty Creator  has  so  completely  tied  up 
his  own  hands,  that  he  cannot  move,  or 
control  at  pleasure,  his  own  works  ? — When 
our  Saviour,  while  on  earth,  healed  diseases 
with  a  touch  or  a  word,  nay,  at  a  distance 
probably  of  miles  from  those  upon  whom 
his  power  was  exerted,  how  much  of  the 
process  was  submitted  to  the  senses  of 
those  around  him  ?  Did  they  see  any  thing 
more  than  an  effect  ?  Had  they  not,  up  to 
that  time,  the  most  decided  evidence  of 
their  senses,  and  of  universal  observation, 
that  diseases,  and  those  the  most  frightful, 
are  not  healed  by  a  touch  or  a  word  ?  And 
when  with  a  word  he  raised  the  dead,  did 
they  not  unanimously  testify,  that  such  a 


62    SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

thing  had  never  been  seen  or  heard  of 
before  ? — We  repeat,  that  we  advance  these 
considerations  merely  in  order  to  insist, 
that  when  the  Almighty  chooses  to  adopt 
some  mode  of  procedure  different  from  any 
ever  witnessed  before,  and  in  which  our 
senses  shall  be  completely  at  fault ;  when 
it  is  his  pleasure  that  Moses  shall  see  a 
bush  obviously  burning  and  yet  not  burn- 
ing ; — when  it  pleases  him  to  set  at  nought 
nil  the  past  experience  and  observation  of 
men  ; — when  the  disciples  can  walk  all  the 
way  to  Emmaus  with  Jesus,  and  sit  at  meat 
with  him,  and  yet  not  know  him,  though 
they  had  known  him  for  years,  it  is  all  folly 
and  presumption  to  say,  that  these  things 
cannot  and  must  not  be,  because  they  con- 
tradict the  evidence  of  men's  senses,  and 
universal  observation.*  And  if  thus  it  is 

*  Dr.  Schmucker  says,  in  his  Article  on  the  Nature 
of  the  Saviour's  Presence  in  the  Eucharist,  p.  38, 
Ev.  Rev.  for  July,  1851.  "No  testimony  is  so  strong 
as  that  of  the  senses  ;  because  on  it  rests  our  be- 
lief even  of  the  Scriptures."  This  assertion  calls 
for  important  qualifications.  The  testimony  of  the 
senses  is  so  sure  as  to  be  safely  relied  upon  in  all 
the  ordinary  affairs,  and  common  practical  interests 
of  life.  But  it  is  reliable  only  when  the  sense* 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.        63 

folly  and  impertinence  to  assert,  in  a  gene- 
ral way,  that  God  shall  do  nothing,  and 
reveal  nothing,  or  that  no  interpretation  of 
his  word  shall  stand,  that  does  not  accord 
with  the  evidence  of  our  senses,  as  if  these 
were  infallible  and  could  not  be  deceived, 
or  that  does  not  correspond  with  the  past 
universal  observation  of  mankind,  how 
much  more  impertinent  and  arrogant  is  it, 
to  apply  this  canon  to  a  doctrine  which 

observe  under  favourable  circumstances  :  when  the 
object  seen  is  near,  and  in  a  clear  light :  when  the 
sound  heard  is  distinct,  and  when  the  object  from 
which  it  proceeds;  is  seen,  or,  at  least,  certainly 
known  to  be  the  only  one  in  the  place  capable  of 
producing  it.  But  our  senses  are  so  notoriously 
subject  to  a  great  many  illusions,  that  the  fact  has 
been,  long  since,  put  into  the  form  of  a  proverb  : 
as,  "  Der  Schein  triigt :" — "Appearances  are  de- 
ceitful." What  becomes  of  the  evidence  of  the 
senses,  as  respects  the  feats  performed  by  modern 
Hindoo  and  Egyptian  magicians,  by  such  jugglers 
as  Blitz  and  Anderson,  and  by  many  so-called  ven- 
triloquists ?  What  is  the  origin  of  most  ghost  sto- 
ries ?  When  Dr.  Webster  was  under  trial,  two  very 
respectable  women  testified  under  oath,  that  they 
hac  seen  Dr.  Parkman  after  the  time  of  his  alleged 
murder.  Every  body  knows  that  our  senses  are 
liable  to  be  deceived  in  numberless  ways. 


64    SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

has  reference  to  a  glorified  body,  myste- 
riously and  inseparably  united  with  an  in- 
finitely glorious  divine  nature,  and  when  we 
know  nothing  of  the  capabilities  of  a  glorified 
body,  least  of  all  of  a  glorified  body  united, 
like  our  Saviour's,  with  the  divine  nature  of 
the  Son  of  God.  But  for  the  further  discus- 
sion of  this  point  we  are  not  yet  ready.  For 
the  present  we  wish  to  show,  that  even  with 
reference  to  our  Saviour's  humanity,  pre- 
vious to  his  being  glorified,  it  is  inadmissible 
to  reason  from  the  universal  observation 
and  experience  of  mankind.  We  contend, 
that  divers  important  events  in  the  history 
of  our  Lord's  earthly  life  forbid  us  to  apply 
to  his  person  the  ordinary  laws  of  matter, 
or  to  erect  them  into  barriers  to  his  move- 
•ments  and  activity,  when,  in  his  infinite 
wisdom,  he  sees  fit  to  disregard  what  is  no 
doubt  the  ordinary  course  of  things,  and  to 
dissolve  relations  which,  though  ascertained 
to  prevail  as  far  as  we  know,  in  general, 
we  have  no  authority  to  consider  as  impe- 
rative laws,  by  which  the  Creator  himself, 
(and  is  not  the  Son  of  God  the  Creator  ?) 
had  literally  tied  his  own  hands.  On  one 
occasion  Christ  was  seen  walking  on  the 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER,         65 

sea,  and  even  enabled  Peter  to  do  the  same, 
so  long  as  he  believed.  What  became  here, 
in  the  persons  of  Peter  and  the  Lord,  of 
the  laws  of  matter  ?  Was  the  law  of  gravi- 
tation suspended,  or  was  the  water  con- 
gealed, or  were  their  bodies  sublimated  into 
something  lighter  than  wrater  ?  The  answer 
is  due  from  those  who  reject  the  doctrine 
of  the  real  presence,  because  it  conflicts 
with  the  known  and  established  laws  of  mat- 
ter or  corporeity.  Thus  also  our  Lord 
seems,  after  his  resurrection,  to  have  ap- 
peared to  his  disciples  in  different  forms 
(see  Mark  xvi.  12.);  and  on  one  occasion, 
as  related  by  Luke  (xxiv.  36.)  and  John 
(xx.  19.),  he  suddenly  stood  in  their  midst, 
when,  for  fear  of  the  Jews,  the  doors  were 
shut,  or  rather,  locked — bolted — barred — 
secured — fastened:  "T«»  Svpat  KfxA£*e-|W.fv<vv." 
Were  the  well-known  laws  of  matter  or 
corporeity  observed  on  these  occasions  ? 
But  again,  at  the  marriage  in  Cana  the 
Lord  turned  a  great  quantity  of  water  into 
wine,  so  that,  in  defiance  of  the  evidence 
of  the  senses  of  those  who  had  poured  the 
water  into  the  vessels,  the  space  just  occu- 
pied by  the  water  was  now  full  of  wine. 
6* 


66    SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

On  another  occasion  he  fed  four  thousand 
men,  besides  women  and  children,  with 
what  to  their  senses  was  obviously  nothing 
more  than  five  loaves  and  two  fishes,  and 
yet  there  were  afterwards  twelve  baskets 
full  of  broken  meat  taken  up.  At  another 
time  he  fed  about  four  thousand  persons, 
with  what  no  mortal  senses  could  make  out 
to  be  more  than  seven  loaves  and  a  few 
small  fishes,  and  afterwards  seven  baskets 
full  of  broken  meat  were  taken  up.  It  may 
be  objected  to  these  instances,  that  they 
were  miracles.  So  doubtless  they  were  : 
but  what,  pray,  are  miracles  ?  The  question, 
however,  here  is,  what  became  then,  what 
ever  becomes,  of  the  well-known  and  esta- 
blished laws  of  matter  or  corporeity,  as  ap- 
plied to  Christ's  person  and  activity  ?  In 
the  last  two  instances  mentioned  it  may  be 
urged,  that  there  was  an  exercise  of  creative 
power,  put  forth  in  the  production  of  the 
more  that  was  needed  in  addition  to  what 
was  on  hand.  The  explanation  may  be 
correct :  we  do  not  profess  to  know  or  un- 
derstand, when  "  God  moves  in  a  myste- 
rious way."  All  that  we  do  know  about  it, 
is,  what  our  Lord  himself  afterwards  said 


to  his  disciples  respecting  these  two  events, 
when  they  were  indulging  in  unprofitable 
surmises:  "Do  ye  not  remember ?  When 
I  brake  the  Jive  loaves  among  Jive  thousand, 
how  many  baskets  full  of  fragments  took 
ye  up  ?  And  when  the  seven  among  four 
thousand,  how  many  baskets  full  of  frag- 
ments took  ye  up?"  Mark  viii.  19,  20. 

We  once  more  repeat,  that  we  do  not 
bring  forward  these  remarkable  and  won- 
derful occurrences,  to  which  others  might 
be  added,  because  we  regard  them  as  having 
any  direct  connexion  with  the  subject  here 
under  consideration,  but  because  they 
prove,  that  to  oppose  the  laws  of  matter 
to  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  real  pre- 
sence of  Christ's  glorified  humanity  in  the 
Lord's  Supper,  amounts  to  nothing ;  that  it 
will  not  do  to  apply  the  ordinary  laws  of 
matter  or  corporeity  to  the  glorified  hu- 
manity of  Him,  who,  while  on  earth,  was 
subject  to  these  laws  no  further  than  it 
pleased  him  and  the  Father  that  he  should 
be.  If  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation 
involves  an  absurdity  or  impossibility,  it 
would  obviously  be  carrying  human  pre- 
sumption entirely  too  far,  to  affirm,  the 


68    SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

same  of  the  view  of  the  Lord's  Supper  in- 
culcated in  Scripture,  held  by  the  early 
Church,  and  set  forth  in  our  Confessions. 

Thus  far  we  had  written,  when  Dr. 
Schmucker's  article  in  the  last  number  of 
this  Review  having  come  to  hand,  we  glan- 
ced our  eye  over  its  pages.  The  obvious 
necessity  of  replying  to  this  production  will 
give  to  the  present  article  a  form  entirely 
different  from  what  we  had  intended.  But 
ere  we  take  it  up  regularly,  we  shall  pro- 
ceed briefly  to  discuss  the  point  which,  in 
our  original  plan  came  next  in  order.  The 
objection  to  which  wre  here  refer  has  been 
brought  forward  time  and  again,  but  as  Dr. 
S.  states  it  anew  with  undiminished  con- 
fidence, we  shall  refer  the  reader  to  his 
remarks,  which  we  have  not  space  to  quote 
in  full.  They  will  be  found  on  p.  42  sq. 
under  c.,  d.  and  e.  The  sum  and  substance 
of  the  objection  is,  that  the  Lutheran  "in- 
terpretation" of  the  words  of  institution 
"cannot  be  correct,  because  the  glorified 
body,  which  is  said  to  be  received  with  the 
elements,  had  actually  not  yet  any  exis- 
tence, and  therefore  could  not  have  been 
given  by  the  Saviour  to  his  disciples  at  the 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.         69 

Holy  Supper  ;  that  the  Eucharist  could  not 
have  conferred  the  broken  body  to  the  dis- 
ciples at  its  institution,  because  it  was  not 
yet  broken,"  &c.  that  "the  old  Lutheran 
theory  cannot  be  correct,  according  to  the 
language  of  Christ ;  because  he  says,  Luke 
xxii.  19.  'Do  this  in  remembrance  of  me,' " 
&c.  The  amount  of  this  formidable  ob- 
jection is  just  this,  that,  if  the  Eucharist  be 
what  we  Lutherans  believe  and  say  it  is, 
then  the  disciples  did  not,  at  the  time  of  the 
institution,  receive  it  actually,  in  its  real 
nature,  and  in  the  fulness  of  its  power  and 
blessing,  and  that  hence  the  Lord's  Supper, 
as  celebrated  subsequently  to  our  Lord's 
ascension  and  glorification,  is  totally  diffe- 
rent from  what  it  was  at  the  institution. 
We  shall  presently  show  that  it  is  perfectly 
competent  and  safe  for  us  to  take  this  po- 
sition ourselves.  But  ere  we  explain  our- 
selves on  this  particular  point,  there  is 
another,  the  third  above  stated,  which  must 
be  noticed.  The  three  objections  to  which 
we  have  just  referred  constitute,  in  fact, 
the  three  links  of  one  connected  chain  of 
argument ;  and  it  is  only  strange  that  those, 
who  use  this  argument  against  the  Luthe- 


70    SCRIPTURAL  CHAAACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

ran  interpretation  of  the  words  of  institution, 
do  not  see  that,  if  it  proves  any  thing  at 
all,  it  proves  entirely  too  much  for  their 
purpose.  If  the  Lutheran  doctrine  is 
wrong,  because  the  Eucharist  could  not, 
at  its  institution,  be  what  it  is  now  claimed 
to  be,  inasmuch  as  the  Saviour  was  then 
reclining,  in  his  ordinary  humanity,  under 
the  very  eyes  of  his  disciples,  do  not  those 
who  thus  argue,  discern,  that  this  very 
same  reasoning  annihilates  their  own  view 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  ?  It  is  to  them  a  com- 
memorative ordinance  :  very  little,  if  any 
thing,  more,  so  far  as  we  can  discover.  If 
such  it  be,  it  has,  of  course,  ever  since  the 
events  which  it  commemorates,  been  en- 
tirely different  from  what  it  was  at  the  time 
of  institution ;  for  how  could  it,  at  that 
time,  commemorate  what  was  yet  future — 
our  Lord's  last  sufferings  and  death  ?  To 
the  opponents  of  the  Lutheran  doctrine  this 
argument  is  therefore  worse  than  useless 
for  their  purpose :  if  the  Eucharist  must 
needs  have  been,  at  the  time  of  institution, 
what  it  now  is,  their  reasoning  reduces  their 
sacramental  supper  to  an  unmeaning  cere- 
mony— a  positive  farce.  Now  it  is  very 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.        71 

strange  that  Dr.  S.,  who  very  clearly  per- 
ceives this  state  of  the  case,  and  gives  up 
entirely  (p.  43.  e.,  and  on  subsequent  pages) 
the  view  that  the  Eucharist,  in  its  com- 
memorative character,  was  at  the  time  of 
institution  what  it  afterwards  was  and  now 
is,  does  not  perceive,  that  he  renounces  all 
right  and  title  to  the  argument  which  he 
advances  on  p.  42.,  c.  and  d.  If  it  was  not, 
at  the  time  of  institution,  commemorative, 
because  the  facts  to  be  commemorated  had 
not  yet  occurred,  then,  is  it  consistent  with 
truth  and  justice  to  condemn  the  Lutheran 
doctrine,  because,  for  the  same  reason,  the 
Eucharist  could  not  then  have  bestowed 
what  we  maintain  it  was  designed  to  bestow, 
and  does  confer,  after  and  since  the  cruci- 
fixion, ascension  and  glorification  ? 

We  shall,  we  hope,  be  pardoned  for  un- 
folding our  view  of  the  whole  of  this  sub- 
ject a  little  more  fully.  We  regard  it  as 
perfectly  clear  and  indisputable,  that  to  the 
disciples  the  Eucharist  could  not,  at  its  in- 
stitution, have  been  what  it  subsequently 
was  to  the  Church,  the  actual  communion 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  that 
not  only  because  the  Saviour  had  not  yet 


72    SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

suffered  and  died,  but  for  this  reason  also, 
that  at  that  time  they  were  evidently  still 
entirely  incapable  of  understanding  him. 
Notwithstanding  his  discourse  recorded  in 
the  sixth  Chap,  of  John's  Gospel,  by  which 
the  Lord  obviously  sought  to  prepare  their 
minds  for  the  institution  of  his  Holy  Supper 
and  for  just  views  of  its  nature ;  and  not- 
withstanding his  repeated  declarations,  that 
he  was  about  to  suffer  and  to  die,  it  is  en- 
tirely clear,  not  only  from  the  manner  in 
which  they  are  described  as  having  re- 
peatedly expressed  themselves  in  reply  to 
such  declarations,  but  from  their  whole 
conduct  up  to  the  time  when  they  could 
no  longer  doubt  that  he  was  risen  again, 
that  they  had  never  fairly  comprehended 
the  nature,  or  duly  appreciated  the  design 
of  his  mission ;  that  they  had  utterly  failed 
to  understand  what  he  had  come  to  ac- 
complish, and  how  his  purpose  was  to  be 
accomplished  ;  that,  full  of  the  unwarranted 
Messianic  expectations  of  the  Jews,  they 
were  persuaded,  up  to  the  moment  when 
he  was  seized  by  the  emissaries  of  the  chief- 
priests  and  elders,  that  he  would  throw  off 
what  they  seem  to  have  regarded  as  a  dis- 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.         73 

guise,  and,  placing  himself  at  the  head  of 
the  people,  fulfil  those  political  hopes  which 
the  Jewish  nation  connected  with  the  com- 
ing of  the  Messiah.  But  when  he  was  ar- 
rested by  his  enemies,  they  were  overwhel- 
med with  disappointment,  and,  filled  with 
fear  and  dismay,  "  then  all  the  disciples  for- 
sook him  and  fled"  Previous  to  this  event 
they  had  eaten  the  passover  with  their 
Master.  And  is  it  not  perfectly  clear,  that 
under  such  circumstances,  while  they  en- 
tertained such  views  and  feelings  and  hopes, 
the  Eucharist  could  not  have  had  for  them 
any  intelligible  present  meaning  and  sig- 
nificance. We  cannot  conceive  it  possible 
that  they  should  have  discerned,  at  the 
time,  its  true  import  and  design.  For  this 
reason,  therefore,  as  well  as  for  this,  that 
their  Master's  body  had  not  yet  been  scour- 
ged, and  nailed  to  the  cross,  and  pierced 
with  the  spear,  the  Eucharist  could  not,  at 
the  time  of  institution,  have  been  what  it 
afterwards  became,  and  has  been  ever  since 
to  the  Church,  in  whatever  peculiar  light 
it  may  be  regarded ;  whether  received  from 
the  Lutheran,  the  Calvinistic,  or  the  Zuing- 
lian  standpoint.  We  may  regard  the  whole 


;-tiie  words  ,  used 


f  ^ths  ijft^i 
tov^on^  Ms  pat  tf  aiid  that'  of  4Me  •  disdiplfs  >  \ 


gk^d  r;'  tfafe 
dsttibiishing 
'ifcfe  absefrved  %)f*he 


spekero 
tafceii  place.*;   vbr&inii 


, 
J  of   rofebcsti^  actr<m^  ('m  iecoiid  edf  Jeiin 


tite  --Holf  iSpirft  iMtiibng  after 
P  a  M)* 
atfe^  i't 

eteiy  ^ 


ithe 

tk&t  it1  cannot 
it=  -feMyfy  ^ould  (wot  ti/im  hav<0 
th¥ 


ttit  ::he 

na©F6  I  than)  li»  jjusty  Itio,  theicatils  k>^j  ik 
iieafiofely/iAnd^ifhemsi  w^e;ii(Diisiddi;y  th^-t  jtia 
Hblyr  ISaorj9rqi^n 
chafactiBBi6f  its 
of 


most  a  pra^  arM  to  oihs&tr  ^i  Jhai  geivnen  )  i 

institutioa^  i  tie  Hotyi'Suppejri  twafe,  : 

my  stefi^bsfy/  yet  r»ipuly  1  land  i  :•  a6tua%,y  Mbe 

communion  of  1  t&B  /body  and  feloodsof 

Lamb?f\vtach  "Vvas^lai 

of:  thteyUrorhLiii  Wfa$®i  eiikdr  ^ritew  l 


oeiiifei&f  tfeife  ->t»fe  istratogly 
la>ttei:.  .doiurfO  rusitarafO  »iij  10 
l^itidiad  IbeenJonfj  iiitentioni  t&ic&try  out 
oa^:>disGtu^sion  f  ;~vi4th©ot  dialect  >re%fcehjoe  it0 
aarp  tvmtdrs'  "opposed  itp  theiLmtherani  , 
fe&sitfras;  ^dtiaiMae-ofthreppated  oVj^ 

oiijotii: 
ist]  haire 


76    SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

been  presented,  in  martial  array,  in  Dr. 
Schmucker's  recent  article,  it  will,  for  va- 
rious reasons,  be  best  that  we  should  take 
them  up  in  the  form,  if  not  quite  in  the  or- 
der, in  which  they  are  there  exhibited. 
And  this  we  shall  accordingly  proceed  to  do. 
There  is  but  one  point  in  the  Doctor's 
Introduction  which  we  feel  called  upon  to 
notice.  Respecting  the  doctrine  here  be- 
fore us  he  states  (p.  34), 'that  "it  has  been 
a  bone  of  contention  in  the  Protestant 
Church,  with  but  little  intermission,  ever 
since  its  origin,  until  about  fifty  years  ago, 
when  the  Lutheran  Church  almost  univer- 
sally abandoned  the  views,  which  Luther 
and  his  co-labourers,  with  few  exceptions, 
entertained."  If  the  word  "origin"  here 
refers  to  the  doctrine,  we  have  only  to  re- 
peat, what  has  already  been  shown,  that 
the  origin  of  the  doctrine  dates  back  to  the 
beginning  of  the  Christian  Church.  As  to 
the  rest,  we  incline  to  think,  that  a  correct 
knowledge  of  the  true  state  of  the  case 
would  reduce  the  expression,  "almost  uni- 
versally," to  "to  a  considerable  extent." 
If  the  statement  has  any  particular  refer- 
ence to  the  Lutheran  Church  in  this  coun- 


:  jt 


to  decide 


the 
;,  fifty 


^IJMffl 

^^./^!!^ 


$^ 


78    SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

not  yet  heard  of  any  formal,  universal 
abrogation  of  our  Confessions ;  and  the 
event  is  less  likely  than  ever  to  occur.  Is 
it  not  quite  noteworthy  and  thankworthy 
that,  as  the  pernicious  miasmata  and  the 
illusive  ignes  fatui  of  modern  rationalism 
and  neology  in  Germany  were  compelled 
to  give  way  before  the  light  diffused  through 
the  revival  of  a  candid,  humble,  reverent 
and  devout  study  of  the  Scriptures,  and  as 
theology  again  learned  submission  to  the 
Bible,  the  most  thoroughly  educated  and 
enlightened  theologians  of  our  Church  be- 
gan to  return  to  the  unaltered  text  of  her 
Confession,  the  loyal  adherents  of  which 
are  daily  increasing  in  number  ? 

In  his  first  section  (p.  35.  sq.)  Doctor  S. 
lays  down  certain  "general  principles  of  in- 
terpretation," respecting  which  we  have 
little  to  say.  The  first  paragraph  contains 
an  assertion  concerning  the  nature  of  words, 
which  a  superficial  acquaintance  with  the 
subject  may  seem  to  warrant,  but  which, 
upon  thorough  research,  and  a  profound 
study  of  the  sources  of  our  modern  lan- 
guages, is  proved  to  be  untenable  and  ut- 
terly incorrect.  This,  however,  merely  en 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.         79 

passant :   we  have  no  time  for  philological 
disquisitions. 

As  respects  his  subordination  of  inspired 
language  to  the  judgments  of  natural  reason 
and  of  common  sense,  and  his  rejection,  as 
untrue,  of  what  his  natural  reason  and  his 
common  sense  cannot  approve,  though  it 
be  the  meaning  of  Scripture  literally  under- 
stood, we  had  seen  this  position  taken  so 
often  before,  that  it  did  not  at  all  startle  us 
to  encounter  it  again  in  this  place.  Hence 
we  took  no  notice  of  it  at  first.  We  deem 
it,  however,  proper  to  state  here,  that  we 
regard  it  as  essentially  and  thoroughly 
rationalistic ;  and  we  are  satisfied,  that 
whenever  this  rule  or  canon  comes  to  be 
strictly  and  consistently  carried  out  in  its 
application  to  revealed  truth,  by  divines  of 
still  orthodox  churches,  we  shall  soon  see 
that  many  doctrines,  which  are  now  con- 
sidered fundamental  and  of  paramount  im- 
portance, among  them  that  of  the  insepar- 
able union  of  the  divine  and  human  natures 
in  Christ,  of  the  Trinity,  and  with  these, 
that  of  redemption,  will  be  cast  away.  The 
advocates  of  the  paramount  authority  of 
natural  reason  and  common  sense,  which 


another,  a  different  thing,  c' 

i^«a;^ 
ini  ilfais 


or  >  dai^    n  onqiKlel  io  i^i^^ge  .-  1  1 
toithfe  M16  wirtgf  Mt  afeeiii'tot  >•)  rf,; 
ra^s^4;Qf  ^rneaal  ordbafftl 
tWei^  fjnatrita^  t  f  anqsflfii  ofeMi^tts,  «  tan^ 


<  occur,  to 


iftM 


J 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.        81 

cussion,  when  we  read,  for  the  first  time, 
the  dissertation  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Eu 
charist,  which  Dr.  Schmucker  appended  to 
the  first  edition  of  his  translation  of  Storr 
and  Flatt's  Elementary  Course  of  Biblical 
Theology,  published  in  1826.  Viewed  by 
the  side  of  his  article  now  before  us,  this 
dissertation  possesses  a  peculiar  interest. 
It  is  composed  mainly  of  extended  extracts 
from  the  writings  of  Reinhard  and  Mos- 
heim,  in  which  it  is  clearly  shown  that  the 
words  of  institution  are  not,  and  cannot  be, 
figurative,  and  the  entire  consistency  of  the 
Lutheran  view  with  Scripture  and  reason 
is  most  effectually  vindicated.  We  have 
not  room,  in  this  place,  to  quote  from  these 
extracts;  we  may  do  so  on  a  subsequent 
page.  If  our  readers  will  look  them  up, 
and  read  them  in  connexion  with  the  article 
to  which  we  are  now  endeavouring  to  reply, 
we  promise  them  that  they  will  find  them 
quite  rich  and  delicious.  In  his  conclusion, 
the  Doctor  himself  labours  very  successfully, 
by  a  train  of  reasoning  totally  different,  in 
the  main,  from  that  which  we  have  pre- 
sented supra,  to  show  that  the  appeal  to 
the  "  properties  and  laws  of  matter,"  in  ar- 


82 


guing'  agaiiist^the 

LoirdJs  *  Supper^  i^>  fyiattfcuso  and  absurd  : 

ofl&irfgi  -:tfcfL$,  whde^WottHcitirch's  denial 


tfoo&e  >  ^rQpMess^  '  isLiSl*'-  sifej  ^ctf  ;  jto 
,]5]? 
?  a 


e  -the 

agree  %ittt 


i  of  <3hri$t  wifar  ^mof  d 
inS  iijs)  p£e$e*»ti 
terial)  i  Bodies  i 


•  oif  the  f  greatest  ^xaliat^n  '  from  Ms 
)  -^ith  j  ;  G*od?  B  without  '  destroying  f  he 
properties  (ubkho^viiillo^iJs^^f  His 
fifed  'b©d>y/'n  HBenei  dixisti; 
refrjarfciis;  as^fbiloks^  ^ 
we  j  (tviBh'l  merety  'ltd  ;  . 


*  tap  'i«  ait^eitlri^^J  ftf 
Scrfptuce;  i  iar^ll  itfeat^i  a^'  m-  thV>cfasei  M  tH^ 
d0ctrin-e.  >  of  .>  the  f  'TriYiit 
it)  IHa^e  tHe  in^ir«dii  writers  " 
Aiid'  ith'is  4tiestibn4ia«'  Been^uly-dis^ussed 


-  CXF 


in  i  4h«fvjpfwc«*ding'y  f&ragtajfti  «6f/  onr 
andi  f  hlo  tipel  <  exlfcadfsi  r  irorri  :•  (flues  wcrrife  Off  i  Dm 
i;>Wheik>  r  wet  ftnSna>  tewfar  ^jfte'i  if  ram; 


oMio  atte  ^»dffflteteiqr»^ar  dciatSe  ligHt  dihe: 
acnp«feffl6hg  the  i.EuH 
:pt  Ujjorii  ifcini 


deep  regret,.  1th  at{ 

beeqi  /  4edj  i  rixyj  1  pMbo^piiealc  j 

to  abandon  '?aldoc}tr&e>oW!h;iclj  i 

ously  ?  taught  t  hyi  tbeiSsadited  fScri 

df>  whieh  Ms 

shooid:>  cd 


iii:  the-ckigti-.fNb.fof-Jtiii  BeSriew,  w 
dmnri^a  hasfe>  fbrit!  ;lit'1>lft  otm  ;sa 
whrit  isilthfeiiie  grviefa  I&B//'  The>liteifa'i' 
of;  (the!  tfoMff  ©fjtkejJnstHutioni;*!' 
ftterebrji  the!  RtJpisli  9int^p«et 

sibBiatia^lon  .  .  <  t  M0  ^have 
riied  Ihktiltfiiis  Hniferpretatrottiife 


i  'would 


84    SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

manner  in  which  the  Saviour's  words  are, 
in  this  section,  between  marks  of  quotation, 
amplified,  distorted,  and  made  self-contra- 
dictory, for  the  purpose  of  caricaturing  the 
so-called  literal  interpretation  of  the  Ro- 
manists. Such  proceedings  are  unworthy 
a  grave  and  dignified  divine. — To  the  wri- 
ter's strong  assertion  respecting  the  superior 
validity  of  the  testimony  of  our  senses,  wye 
have  replied  in  a  note  on  p.  62. 

Having  disposed  of  the  Romish  super- 
stition, Dr.  S.  proceeds  to  give  what  he  is 
pleased  to  style  "the  first  figurative  inter- 
pretation (that  of  Luther)"  of  the  words  of 
the  institution,  in  a  burlesque  amplification, 
and  a  downright  caricature  of  our  Saviour's 
language.  If  the  Doctor  imagines  that 
such  outrages  are  creditable  to  himself  and 
those  who  agree  with  him,  and  that  they 
will  gain  friends  to  the  side  which  he  has 
espoused,  he  will,  we  fancy,  find  himself 
sadly  mistaken.  For  our  part,  we  shall 
not  further  meddle  with  his  unwarranted 
and  bizarre  paraphrase  of  words,  which,  in 
their  plain  and  direct  meaning,  are  suscep- 
tible of  one  widely  different  from  his,  as 
we  have  already  shown ;  he  is  welcome  to 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.        85 

all  the  praise  which  his  efforts  as  a  carica- 
turist may  procure  him.  That  the  Luthe- 
ran interpretation  is  not  figurative  at  all, 
but  the  only  truly  literal  one  that  we  know 
of,  we  have  also  fully  set  forth  on  a  pre- 
ceding page.  It  therefore  only  remains  in 
this  place,  that  we  briefly  notice  another 
instance  of  his  promptness  to  supply  words 
which  those,  upon  whose  language  he  is 
commenting,  never  used,  and  meanings 
which  they  never  intended.  In  a  note  on 
p.  39.  he  puts  the  tenth  article  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  into  the  following  words  : 
"the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord  are  truly 
and  substantially  (vere  et  substantialiter) 
present,  and  tendered  and  received,  as  the 
Romish  Church  has  hitherto  believed*  (wie 
man  bis  anher  inderKirchen  gehaltenhat.)" 
Now  this  is  a  downright  perversion,  an  in- 
excusable instance  of  misrepresentation, 
and  calculated  to  mislead  every  reader  un- 
acquainted with  the  German  language.  The 
article  in  question  says  not  a  word  about 
the  Romish  Church,  but  speaks  of  the 
Church  in  general  terms — of  that  Church 
which  existed  long  before. Romanism  was 

*  The  italics  are  his  own. 
8 


86    SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

born ;  and  that  the  primitive  Church  held 
those  views,  which  he  is  here  assiduously- 
labouring  to  bring  into  discredit,  we  have 
already  proved  by  the  requisite  evidence. 
But  what  must  candid  readers  think  of  a 
cause  which  requires  such  methods  of  de- 
fence as  that  to  which  our  author  has  here 
resorted  ? 

In  another  note  on  p.  41,  he  cites  the 
language  of  the  Visitation  Articles  of  Saxo- 
ny, in  order  to  render  that  of  the  Symboli- 
cal Books  more  offensive.  We  shall  here 
only  reply,  that  it  has  always  been  well 
understood,  that  the  language  quoted  from 
the  Visitation  Articles  was  never  intended 
to  be  received  in  so  gross  a  sense  as  to 
identify  our  Lord's  body  in  the  Sacrament 
with  his  earthly  body,  as  will,  moreover, 
clearly  appear  upon  a  candid  examination 
of  the  whole  context.  And,  at  all  events, 
whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  represen- 
tation made  in  these  articles,  the  Symboli- 
cal Books  of  the  Lutheran  Church  are  not 
at  all  responsible  for  it :  those  Articles  have 
never  had  authority  out  of  Saxony,  where 
sovereign  power  imposed,  and  required 
subscription  to  them,  and  hence  they  ought 


DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER.          87 

never  to  have  been  printed  with  the  Sym- 
bolical Books  of  our  Church,  except  in  an 
Appendix.  We  do  wish,  that  those  who 
controvert  our  Confessions  would  confine 
themselves  to  such  books  as  have  real  sym- 
bolical authority. 

We  proceed.  The  general  drift  of  the 
argument  advanced  by  our  author  under 
b.,  c.,  d.  e.,  on  pp.  41  sqq.  has  already  been 
answered  in  that  part  of  our  discussion, 
which  wras  written  before  we  received  the 
article  before  us.  We  have  therefore  yet 
only  to  attend  to  a  few  of  his  specifications. 
The  manner  in  which  instances  are  men- 
tioned, in  which  the  risen  Saviour  appeared 
to  one  or  more  of  his  disciples,  and  not  at 
the  same  time  to  others,  amounts  to  noth- 
ing more  than  transparent  special  pleading : 
we  might  as  well  be  told,  that  when  he 
pronounced  the  parable  of  the  sower,  he 
was  not,  at  the  same  time,  uttering  that  of 
the  good  Samaritan,  and  so  on.  If  the 
risen  Saviour  deemed  it  proper  to  show 
himself,  on  different  occasions,  to  one  or 
more  of  his  friends,  while  others  were  ab- 
sent, does  this  prove  any  thing  more  than 
that  he  chose,  in  his  wisdom,  to  act  so  and 


88    SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

no  otherwise  ?  Does  it  demonstrate  the  im- 
possibility of  his  doing  a  thousand  other 
things  which  he  did  not  do  ?  But  does  our 
author  forget  that  shortly  before  his  ascen- 
sion, our  Saviour  ate  with  (or  in  the  pre- 
sence of)  his  disciples?  "And  they  gave 
him  a  piece  of  a  broiled  fish,  and  of  an 
honey-comb.  And  he  took  it,  and  did  eat 
before  them."  Luke  xxiv.  42,  43. — In  the 
narrative  found  in  St.  John  xxi.  1 — 14.  the 
fact  that  the  Saviour  himself  ate  on  that 
occasion  is  not  distinctly  stated,  but  it  may 
be  justly  inferred  from  all  the  circumstances 
of  the  case. — These  events  plainly  prove, 
that  our  Lord's  human  nature  was  not  yet 
perfectly  glorified.  And  this  is  equally 
evident  from  other  considerations,  for  his 
body  still  obviously  possessed  certain  or- 
dinary properties  of  terrestrial  bodies,  such 
as  visibility,  tangibility,  &c.  We  know 
very  well,  that  the  state  which  is,  in  syste- 
matic divinity,  termed  the  status  exalta- 
tionis,  began  with  the  resurrection ;  but 
we  conceive  it  to  be  indisputable  that  the 
Son  of  Man  was  not  fully  glorified,  until 
he  ascended  to  heaven,  and  sat  down  at  the 
right  hand  of  the  Father  Almighty ;  and 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.        89 

as  the  controversy  respecting  the  real  pre- 
sence of  Christ's  body  and  blood  in  the  Eu- 
charist has  reference  to  his  perfectly  glori- 
fied humanity,  the  argument  here  employed 
by  Dr.  S.  necessarily  falls  to  the  ground. 

But  there  is  another  point,  already  dis- 
cussed  in   extenso,  to   be   briefly  noticed 
here :  this,  namely,  that  the  Lutheran  inter- 
pretation of  the  words  of  institution  "con- 
tradicts  the   observation   of  all  ages   and 
nations,  that  all  bodies,  (material  substan- 
ces) must  occupy  definite  portions  of  space, 
and  cannot  be  at  more  than  one  place  at 
the  same  time."     [See  the  whole  statement 
on  p.  41.  b.]     We  would  here  merely  pre- 
sent a  few  analogies  from  nature,  which 
those  who  are  applying  the  ordinary  laws 
of  matter  or  corporeity  to  the  glorified  body 
of  Christ,  may  take  into  serious  considera- 
tion.    The  sun  is  sensibly  present  through- 
out at  least  the  whole  of  our  system,  by  its 
light,  its  heat,  and  its  powrer  of  attraction, 
whereby  it  centralizes  the  movements  of 
all  the  bodies  that  belong  to  our  section  of 
the  universe.    If  a  telegraph  wire  extended, 
in  one  unbroken  line,  from  New- York  to 
St.  Louis  [the  effect  would  be  the  same  if 


90    SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

it   ran  round  the  globe],  and  the  electric 
current  were  passed  into  it  at  either  ter- 
minus, the  same  electric  spark  would  be 
at  one  and  the  same  moment,  in  St.  Louis 
arid  New- York,    and    at   all  intermediate 
places,  certainly  without  any  appreciable 
difference  of  time.*     More  analogies  of  a 
similar  nature  might  be  given ;    not,  cer- 
tainly, to  prove  any  thing  positive  respect- 
ing the  ubiquity  of  our  Lord's  glorified  hu- 
manity, but  merely  to  show,  that  if  material 
objects  with  which  men  are  regularly  con- 
versant, and  wrhich  are,  in  a  greater  or  less 
degree,  subject  to  the  direct  inspection  of 
our  senses,  and  even  to  our  control,  exhibit 
such  remarkable  properties,  such  astonish- 
ing phenomena,  it  is  in  the  highest  degree 
presumptuous  to  assert,  that  the  Lord  of 
glory  cannot,  in  his  infinitely  exalted  and 
glorified  humanity,  be  present,  entire  and 
undivided,  if  it  so  please  him,  in  all  places 
of  his  dominions. 

*  "  Electricity  passes  instantaneously  to  any  dis- 
tance on  the  earth's  surface."  "  The  news  received 
from  foreign  countries  may  reach  all  parts  of  the 
United  States  at  the  same  moment"  "  The  velo- 
city of  electricity  amounts  to  288,000  miles  per 
second." — Gray's  Elements  of  Natural  Philosophy. 


On  p.  42  we  find  the  following  assertion : 
"The  alleged  'spiritual'  presence  of  the 
Saviour's  body  is  a  contradiction  in  terms." 
Is  it  indeed?  Well,  we  can  supply  our  au- 
thor with  a  few  more  such  contradictions, 
and  he  may  dispose  of  them  as  he  best  can : 
"  It  is  sown  a  natural  body ;  it  is  raised  a 
spiritual  body.  There  is  a  natural  body, 
and  there  is  a  spiritual  body"  [1  Cor. 
xv.  44]".  Really,  the  apostle  Paul  shows 
very  little  deference  to  the  decisions  of 
philosophers.  But  here  is  another :  "But 
a  moral  signification,  as  is  evident  from  the 
passages  just  quoted,  is  far  more  agreeable 
to  the  usus  loquendi,  and  is  perfectly  easy 
and  natural.  The  cup  of  the  blessing — is 
it  not  the  communion,  does  it  not  bring  us 
spiritually  into  communion  with  the  body 
of  Christ,"  &c.  —  [Dr.  Schmucker  on  the 
Nature  of  the  Saviour's  Presence  in  the 
Eucharist :  Ev.  Rev.  for  July,  1851,  p.  46.] 
What  does  our  friend  mean  by  being  brought 
spiritually  into  communion  with  the  body 
of  Christ  ?  What  does  this  spiritual  com- 
munion with  a  body  mean?  According 
to  our  author  it  is  simply  a  point-blank 
contradiction  in  terms.  We,  who  hold 


92    SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

that  the  reception  of  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  is,  though  con- 
nected with  the  reception  of  material  ele- 
ments, not  grossly  sensuous,  but  in  an  im- 
portant sense  a  spiritual  communion,  have 
no  difficulty  with  the  subject.  But  more 
of  this  when  this  point  comes  up  in  due 
order. 

Having  already  answered  the  objections 
under  c.,  d.,  and  e.,  we  proceed  to/.,  on  p. 
43. — It  is  here  argued,  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  real  presence  cannot  be  true,  because 
the  Scriptures  represent  Christ  as  having 
left  this  world,  as  having  returned  to  the 
Father,  and -as  being  seated  at  his  right 
hand  in  heaven:  it  is  urged,  that  "he  was 
carried  up  into  heaven"  and  that  Peter  de- 
clares, that  "  the  heavens  must  receive  him 
until  the  times  of  the  restitution  of  all 
things,  which  God  had  spoken  by  the  mouth 
of  all  his  holy  prophets,  since  the  world 
began."  &c.  &c.  If  this  argument  avails 
any  thing,  it  must  prove,  that  though  there 
be  a  divine  presence  in  the  Church  on  earth, 
the  exalted  Mediator,  the  glorified  Redeem- 
er, is  in  heaven,  and  cannot,  therefore,  be 
in  his  Church,  or  have  any  thing  to  do  with 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.         93 

it,  as  the  God-man.  For  surely,  in  his  per- 
son the  two  natures  are  inseparably  united, 
constituting  the  one  only  Mediator;  and 
where  he  is  at  all,  there  he  is  totus,  entire 
and  undivided.  We  are  really  surprised 
that  a  veteran  theologian,  like  Dr.  S., 
should  use  arguments  like  this,  to  prove 
the  impossibility  of  the  glorified  Saviour's 
presence,  in  his  personal  integrity  or  entire- 
ty, among  his  people ;  and  especially  that 
he  should  support  his  reasoning  by  an  ap- 
peal to  Matt.  xxiv.  23.,  as  if  this  passage 
had  any  connexion  whatever  with  the  sub- 
ject in  hand,  and  were  not  directly  intend- 
ed to  caution  his  disciples  against  the  pre- 
tensions of  pseudo-messiahs,  and  various 
false  rumours.  But  if  this  argument  has  any 
bearing  against  the  Lutheran  view  of  the 
Eucharist,  its  force  must  reach  far  beyond 
this,  for  it  is  equally  valid,  (as  we  have 
seen),  against  the  Saviour's  being  in  any 
sense  present  in  his  Church,  and  indeed, 
against  the  entire  doctrine  of  the  divine 
omnipresence.  We  will  not  weary  our 
readers  by  citing  the  numberless  passages 
in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  which,  on 
the  one  hand,  directly  declare,  and  on  the 


94    SCRIPTURAL   CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

other  indirectly  imply,  that  God  dwelleth 
and  reigneth  in  heaven :  let  a  single  one 
suffice  :  "  Our  Father  who  art  in  heaven  /" 
Now,  if  the  argument  under  consideration 
proves,  that  he,  who  is  in  the  undivided  in- 
tegrity of  his  divine  and  human  nature  the 
glorious  Head  of  the  Church  universal,  can- 
not thus  be  present  among  his  people  on 
earth,  it  also  proves  that  the  Almighty  Fa- 
ther is  not  and  cannot  be  omnipresent,  is 
not  and  cannot  be  present  any  where  but  in 
heaven  ;  for  this  part  of  the  Doctor's  argu- 
ment rests  entirely  on  the  declarations  that 
represent  Christ  as  having  gone  to,  and  as 
being  in,  heaven. 

In  connexion  with  the  passages  cited  by 
Dr.  S.,  we  may  here  refer  to  John  xvi.  16. : 
"A  little  while,  and  ye  shall  not  see  me  : 
and  again,  a  little  while,  and  ye  shall  see 
me,  because  I  go  to  the  Father  ;"  and  John 
xvi.  22.:  "And  ye  now  therefore  have  sor- 
row ;  but  I  will  see  you  again,  and  your 
heart  shall  rejoice,  and  your  joy  no  man 
taketh  from  you  :" — which  seeing  of  him, 
after  his  brief  removal,  the  best  commen- 
tators understand,  for  divers  cogent  rea- 


sons,  to  mean  the  perpetual  communion  of 
believers  with  him. 

As  respects  the  passage,  Acts  iii.  21.,  o» 
$u  xaxvlv  pkv  (Js^ac-Soti;  translated,  "whom  the 
heaven  must  receive,"  and  thus  quoted  here  ; 
does  not  our  author  know,  that,  according 
to  the  grammatical  construction,  the  words 
are  as  readily  and  correctly  translated : 
"  who  must  take  possession  of  heaven  :"  ov 
and  not  xpxvov,  being  the  accusative  before 
the  infinitive  ?  The  use  of  a  middle  verb 
confirms  the  propriety  of  this  rendering, 
which  is,  in  every  respect,  more  accordant 
with  the  exalted  dignity  of  the  personage 
spoken  of,  who  is  constantly  represented, 
not  as  being  carried  to  heaven  by  other 
agents,  but  as  ascending  into  heaven,  and 
whom  St.  Paul  expressly  describes  as  hav- 
ing "  ascended  up  far  above  all  heavens,  that 
he  might  fill  all  things;"  Eph.  iv.  10.,  and  not 
that  heaven  might  so  receive  him,  as  there 
locally  to  confine  and  shut  him  up.  And 
the  apostle  evidently  says  this  of  the  glori- 
fied Redeemer ;  for,  that  God  was  univer- 
sally present  did  not,  in  this  place,  demand 
so  solemn  an  announcement.  Of  course 
the  whole  passage  refers  to  Christ. 


9b    SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

In  this  same  connexion  the  author  says  : 
"  And  although  the  Saviour  left  on  record 
the  delightful  promise,  that  he  would  be 
always  with  his  disciples  till  the  end  of  the 
world,  it  was  in  his  divine  nature,  which  is 
omnipresent ;  and  his  next  visible  appear- 
ance, the  angels  informed  the  men  of  Gali- 
lee at  his  ascension,  would  again  be  from 
heaven  in  like  manner  as  they  had  seen 
him  ascend." — We  should  like  to  ask  Dr. 
S.  whether,  either  in  the  sanctuary,  or  at 
the  domestic  altar,  or  in  the  closet,  he  ever 
prays  for  the  divine  presence,  ever  entreats 
the  exalted  Mediator  and  Redeemer  to  be- 
stow the  favour  of  his  gracious  presence  ; 
and  if  so,  whether  he  means  no  more  than 
this,  that  the  divine  omnipresence  might 
not  be  suspended,  but  be  continued  unto 
and  over  those  with  and  for  whom  he  prays  ? 
Tn  fact,  this  manner  of  explaining  the  Sa- 
viour's delightful  promise  robs  it  of  all  its 
force,  and  strips  it  of  all  that  special  com- 
fort, and  joy  which  it  was  designed  to  com- 
municate. If  it  implied  no  more  than  the 
divine  omnipresence,  then  it  is  simply  tan- 
tamount to  saying ;  that  providence  which, 
as  God,  I  exercise  over  all  my  works,  will 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.        97 

not  be  withdrawn  from  you,  but  will  be 
over  and  with  you  at  all  times,  unto  the 
end  of  the  world.  Such  promises,  rich, 
indeed,  in  blessing  and  comfort,  but  entirely 
general,  they  had  doubtless  often  read  in 
the  Old  Testament.  But  the  context,  the 
entire  occasion,  compels  the  belief  that 
something  special  and  peculiar  was  intend- 
ed— that  he  would  be  present  in  his  Church 
and  with  his  people,  in  a  peculiar  manner, 
different  from  his  presence  in  the  world  by 
his  overruling  providence.  And  we  con- 
tend, that  he  promised  to  be  present  in  the 
character  in  which  he  spake,  as  the  Son  of 
God  and  man,  in  the  indivisible  oneness  of 
his  divine  and  human  nature  ;  nor  are  we 
any  where  told,  that  he  is  ever  otherwise 
present,  in  one  nature  and  not  in  the  other. 
And  whether  men  choose  to  call  this  a  per- 
petual miracle  or  not,  the  promise  remains 
sure,  that  the  divine  and  human  person 
constituting  the  one  Mediator,  will  be  with 
his  people  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world. 

Next   objection.      P.  44.  g. :     "Again, 
whilst  the   idea,  that  Christ  is  figuratively 

represented    as    the  spiritual  food  of  the 
9 


98    SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

believer,  is  a  delightful,  consoling  and  be- 
coming one  ;  the  supposition  that  the  be- 
liever is  to  eat  the  actual  flesh  of  his  best 
friend,  and  drink  his  real  blood,  is  a  gross, 
repulsive  and  unnatural  idea,  which  nothing 
but  the  clearest  evidence  would  authorize 
us  to  adopt."  "  Gross,  repulsive,  and  un- 
natural idea !"  Yes,  if  we  held  that  gross 
sort  of  reception,  which  Luther  calls  Ca- 
pernaitish  eating,  or  if,  like  the  Papists,  we 
taught  transubstantiation.  But  of  this  else- 
where. With  reference  to  the  objection 
here  more  particularly  before  us,  we,  in  the 
first  place,  translate  the  following  sentences 
from  Sartorius :  [Christi  Person  und 
Werk.]— "  It  is  further  said,  that  to  partake 
of  Christ's  body  and  blood  is  a  revolting 
idea:  where,  however,  those  who  make 
this  objection,  themselves  carry  the  revolt- 
ing element  into  the  idea,  by  representing 
to  themselves  the  act,  as  did  the  Jews  at 
Capernaum,  in  the  most  grossly  sensuous 
and  inhuman  manner.  But  there  is  surely, 
in  another  form,  a  partaking  of  the  flesh 
and  blood  of  a  human  being,  which,  al- 
though still  very  material  and  sensuous, 
yet  not  only  presents  nothing  revolting, 


SUPPER.         99 

but  is  rather  an  emblem  (Bild)  of  the  ten- 
derest  love ;  we  mean  this,  when  a  mother 
nourishes  her  sucking  child  with  her  flesh 
and  blood.*  But  with  this  also,  our  par- 
taking of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in 
the  Sacrament  is  not  to  be  compared,  be- 
cause here  every  thing  that  is  materially 
(or  grossly,  TV.)  sensuous  is  out  of  the  ques- 
tion, and  only  the  supersensuous  substance 
thereof  is  received  with  arid  under  the 
bread  and  wine.  Thus  every  thing  offen- 
sive and  repulsive  disappears,"  &c. — This 
is  well  said.  But  we  have  yet  another, 
and,  we  think,  most  important  considera- 
tion to  urge.  If  the  reception  of  Christ's 
body  and  blood  in  the  Eucharist  "is  a 
gross,  repulsive,  and  unnatural  idea,"  what 
are  we  to  say  of  the  doctrine,  that  mankind 
were  redeemed  from  sin  and  eternal  death 
through  Christ's  atoning  sacrifice?  It  will 
not,  we  suppose,  be  pretended,  that  Christ 
came  into  the  world  to  deliver  men  from 

*  We  would  go  still  further,  and  instance  the 
manner  in  which  the  life  of  the  unborn  child  is 
sustained,  nourished,  and  developed  in  the  mo- 
ther's womb.  Is  there  any  thing  repulsive  or  re- 
volting in  this.  Verbum  sapienti  sat. 


100  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

physical  infirmities  and  sufferings,  other- 
wise than  indirectly  through  the  cure  and 
removal  of  that  moral  disease,  by  which  all 
sorts  of  physical  sufferings  are  brought 
upon  the  children  of  men ;  and  certainly 
the  disciples  of  Christ  have  not,  through 
their  connexion  with  him,  obtained  exemp- 
tion from  those  infirmities  and  sufferings 
which  are  the  common  lot  of  humanity. 
It  was  the  moral,  the  spiritual  relations  of 
mankind  to  their  Creator,  which  he  came 
to  restore,  from  the  disordered  and  evil 
state  into  which  they  had  fallen,  to  their 
normal  and  legitimate  condition  ;  he  came 
to  save  men's  souls ;  to  reconcile  man,  as 
a  moral  being,  to  his  God ;  to  heal  his 
moral  diseases ;  to  effect  his  moral  or  spir- 
itual renovation  ;  and  to  fit  him  for  the  en- 
joyment of  happiness  flowing  from  moral 
sources,  having  a  moral  or  spiritual  basis. 
And  yet,  notwithstanding  this  moral  or  spir- 
itual design  of  his  mission,  it  was  necessary 
that  the  Son  of  God  should  appear  in  the 
flesh;  should  suffer  and  bleed  and  die  in 
the  flesh ;  that  his  body  should  be  broken 
and  his  blood  shed,  as  a  propitiatory  sacri- 
fice for  sin,  to  which  pointed  all  the  sin- 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.      101 

offerings  offered  from  the  beginning1  of  time. 
Whatever  else  was  necessary  to  render  the 
sacrifice  effectual,  nothing  is  more  certain 
than  that  the  physical  sufferings  and  death 
of  Christ,  as  the  Lamb  of  God,  were  indis- 
pensable, "forasmuch  as  ye  know  that  ye 
were  not  redeemed  with  corruptible  things, 
as  silver  and  gold,  from  your  vain  conver- 
sation received  by  tradition  from  your  fa- 
thers ;  but  with  the  precious  blood  of 
Christ,  as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and 
without  spot,"  1  Pet.  i.  18,  19.;  and  while 
we  are  told  that  "without  the  shedding  of 
blood  there  is  no  remission,"  wre  are  also 
assured  that  "the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ 
cleanseth  from  all  sin."  Now,  viewing  this 
subject  from  the  standpoint  of  the  opponents 
of  our  Confession,  we  ask,  what  means 
more  gross  and  unnatural  could  have  been 
employed  to  effect  the  great  moral  ends  of 
the  gospel  scheme  ?  What  idea  can  be  more 
repulsive  than  this,  that,  in  order  to  ac- 
complish the  reconciliation  of  man's  soul 
with  the  Eternal  Spirit,  such  a  bodily  sacri- 
fice, such  physical  sufferings  and  death  of 
the  innocent  Jesus  should  have  been  im- 
peratively necessary  ?  God  forbid  that  we 
9* 


102  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

should  intimate,  that  in  all  this  there  is 
aught  gross,  repulsive  and  unnatural :  but 
we  do  say,  that,  if  this  charge  lies  against 
the  Lutheran  view,  not  mis-stated  or  dis- 
torted, respecting  the  Eucharist,  it  holds 
with  equal  comprehensiveness  and  force 
against  the  doctrine  of  atonement  through 
a  bleeding  and  crucified  Saviour.  We  see 
nothing  gross,  repulsive,  or  unnatural  in 
either  doctrine :  but  those  who  make  such 
objections  against  the  one,  are  bound,  in 
consistency,  to  make  them  against  the 
other. 

As  respects  the  remarks  at  the  close  of 
this  section,  9.,  with  respect  to  the  term 
spiritual  applied  by  the  Form  of  Concord 
to  eating  and  drinking  material  flesh  and 
blood,  [recollect,  Lutherans  believe  that 
Christ's  body  is  glorified],  in  a  manner  ut- 
terly unintelligible,  we  do  not  deem  it  ne- 
cessary to  say  more,  than  that  to  us  it  is 
quite  as  intelligible  as  Dr.  Schmucker's  as- 
sertion, that  the  cup  of  blessing  brings  us 
spiritually  into  communion  [i.  e.  spiritual 
communion]  with  the  body  of  Christ. — See 
p.  46. 

Our   author  next  proceeds  to  examine 


DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER.   103 

"several  expressions  in  the  portion  of  Scrip- 
ture discussing  this  subject,  which  have 
been  supposed  to  favour  Luther's  interpre- 
tation ;"  and  he  labours  hard  to  show  that 
they  can  have  no  such  bearing.  The  first 
passage  which  passes  through  the  ordeal 
of  his  criticism  is,  1  Cor.  xi.  27.  The 
reader  is  referred  to  p.  45  of  the  July  No. 
of  the  Review.  Hear  our  author:  "It  has 
been  said,  *  How  could  wTe  be  guilty  of  the 
body  of  Christ,  if  it  were  not  present?' 
We  answer;  To  be  guilty  of  the  body, 
means  in  the  original,  to  be  guilty  or  com- 
mit sin  in  reference  to  the  body :  that  is, 
to  make  the  body  of  Christ  the  occasion 
of  committing  sin."  Very  well  said.  But 
how  this  is  to  be  accomplished,  except  that 
body  be  present,  is  far  beyond  our  feeble 
powers  of  comprehension.  To  treat  with 
irreverence,  or  to  insult,  on  earth,  a  body 
that  is  in  heaven,  and  far  above  all  heavens, 
is  a  mystery  entirely  too  deep  for  us  to 
penetrate.  However,  we  are  having  help. 
The  Doctor  proceeds,  and  gives  us  as  won- 
derful a  piece  of  argumentation  as  we  have 
ever  had  the  felicity  of  inspecting.  "  And 
must  not  all  admit,  that  we  can  and  often 


104  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

do  commit  sin  in  regard  to  absent  per- 
sons or  things  ?  May  we  not  sin,  or  be 
guilty,  in  regard  to  an  absent  friend  [rather 
a  shabby  sort  of  friendship  this,  at  all 
events],  by  slandering  or  even  thinking  ill 
of  him,  just  as  well  as  when  he  is  present  ?" 
Why  yes,  to  be  sure ;  but  what  in  all  the 
world  can  this  have  to  do  with  our  friend's 
body,  unless  we  go  and  commit  assault 
and  battery  upon  him  ?  And  even  if,  when 
he  is  absent,  we  were  to  say  of  him,  that 
he  is  a  paragon  of  ugliness,  and  this  were 
to  be  repeated  to  him,  we  fancy  that  he 
would  regard  the  offence  as  committed,  not 
against  his  body,  but  against  him,  the  in- 
tellectual and  moral  man,  our  friend.  We 
go  on.  "Do  we  not  insult  the  majesty  of 
an  absent  king,  when  we  treat  with  indig- 
nity a  monument  or  other  memorial  which 
has  been  established  in  honour  of  him  V  Ay, 
surely  :  we  grant,  that,  if  he  were  to  hear 
of  such  disrespectful  proceedings,  his  pride 
might  be  offended,  his  dignity  wounded,  his 
conscious  soul  aggrieved  :  but  unless,  in  ad- 
dition to  all  this,  we  should  assail  him  per- 
sonally and  lay  violent  hands  on  him,  his 
body  would,  we  conceive,  care  nothing  at 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.     105 

all  about  the  affair,  and  certainly  be  none 
the  worse  for  it.  No  sir,  no  !  We  must 
keep  serious.  And  we  do  most  solemnly 
contend,  that  this  very  declaration  of  St. 
Paul  is  one  which  the  opponents  of  the 
Lutheran  Confession  never  can  get  over, 
never  can  torture  to  say  any  thing  else, 
than  that  unworthy  communicants  are 
guilty  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord ; 
guilty  of  insulting  and  treating  with  irreve- 
rence and  indignity  the  body  and  blood 
of  our  Lord,  because  his  body  and  blood 
are  present  in  the  Holy  Sacrament,  which 
such  unworthy  communicants  dishonour, 
by  not  discerning,  not  bearing  in  mind  and 
devoutly  considering,  that  it  is  the  glorified 
body  of  Christ  which,  in  mysterious  con- 
nexion with  the  visible  elements,  is  pre- 
sented to  them ;  by  not  receiving  it  with  a 
believing  and  loving  soul,  and  therefore  by 
treating  it  with  irreverence  and  contumely. 
If  the  apostle  had  meant  only,  that  the  un- 
worthy communicant  treated  his  absent 
Saviour  with  disrespect  and  indignity,  why 
did  he  not  say  so  ?  Why  did  he  not  say 
fvo^o5  xpirv,  or  '/va#««  'ly-rul  But  not  mean- 
ing this,  he  says  what  he  does  mean : 


106  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 
ry  o-6ip.ce.Tos  xxi  C&!/M.CITO$  r«  KvpiX :"  guilty  of 

the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord :  thereby 
distinctly  declaring,  that  he  regards  the 
Saviour  as,  in  his  glorified  humanity,  ac- 
tually present  in  the  Eucharist ;  so  that  he 
who  partakes  unworthily  of  the  bread  and 
wine,  treats  with  disrespect  and  irreverence 
what  is  most  sacred,  and  thus  incurs  un- 
speakable guilt. 

As  respects  the  passage  quoted  from  St. 
James,  it  has  not  the  slightest  connexion 
with  the  matter  in  hand.  It  is  not  the 
word  '/»<>#««,  but  the  words  T*  owfMT*  *,*\ 
ctipxros  TX  Ky/><a,  which  are  under  discus- 
sion :  and  moreover,  the  man  who  know- 
ingly and  wilfully  breaks  one  divine  com- 
mand, thereby  shows  that  he  has  no  respect 
for  God's  law ;  that  he  is  ready  for  any 
sin  ;  and  thereby  actually,  virtually  offends 
against  the  whole  law.  We  can  not  in 
any  way  discover,  by  what  principle  of  ex- 
egesis this  passage  is  brought  to  bear  un- 
favourably upon  the  subject  under  discus- 
sion. The  same  remark  applies  to  what 
follows  on  this  45th  page.  This  is  precisely 
the  guilt  of  unworthy  communicants,  that 
they  do  not  distinguish  between  the  eating 


and  drinking  in  the  Eucharist,  and  their 
ordinary  eating  and  drinking :  that  they 
do  not  consider  what  a  sacred  object  is  of- 
ferred  to  them  in  the  celebration  of  that 
solemn  rite.  Men  may  explain  as  much 
as  they  please,  to  the  end  of  time,  and  they 
will  never  get  rid  of  the  overwhelming 
power  of  1  Cor.  xi.  27. 

The  second  passage  examined  by  our 
author,  is  1  Cor.  x.  16. — see  p.  46.  He 
gives  a  number  of  different  significations  in 
which  the  word  «»*»«»/*,  communion,  fellow- 
ship, is  used,  and  cites  passages  to  establish 
and  illustrate  his  definitions.  Now  it  may 
be  quite  interesting  to  show  that  xo/v«w'« 
has  different  meanings ;  but  what  has  all 
this  philological  criticism  to  do  with  the 
matter  in  hand  ?  The  particular  significa- 
tion of  a  word  that  has  many  meanings, 
must  be  determined  by  the  particular  con- 
text in  which  it  occurs ;  just  as  in  English 
we  determine  from  the  connexion,  whether 
the  word  press  means  a  crowd  of  people,  or 
a  wardrobe,  or  a  machine  for  printing,  or 
a  cheese-press.  The  whole  argument  here 
is  as  irrelevant  and  inconsistent,  as  opaque 
and  confused,  as  the  one  on  p.  45,  about 


108  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

tvo%ot.  None  of  the  Doctor's  citations  make 
any  thing  against  the  Lutheran  doctrine 
concerning  the  Eucharist,  and  some  of  them 
fully  confirm  the  correctness  of  our  view. 
Thus,  for  example,  he  refers  to  Rom.  xv. 
26.  and  2  Cor.  ix.  13.,  as  passages  in  which 
xoivwU  signifies  "  communication  or  bestow- 
ment  of  a  benefit,  beneficence."  Now  we 
do  not  at  all  object  to  thus  translating  the 
word  in  these  passages ;  but  how  came  it 
here  to  have  this  signification?  In  two 
ways.  Firstly,  because  the  bestowment  of 
a  benefit  establishes  a  peculiar  communion 
or  fellowship  between  the  donors  and  re- 
ceivers :  but  secondly,  and  chiefly,  because 
in  the  one  case  the  Macedonians  and  Achai- 
ans  made  up  their  "benefit"  by  a  joint  col- 
lection, by  uniting  and  fellowshipping  in 
raising  a  contribution :  in  the  other,  the 
same  is  reported  of  the  Corinthians. — It  is 
not  the  benefit,  but  the  manner  of  it,  that 
gave  rise  to  this  use  of  the  word.  We 
have  neither  time  nor  space  to  bestow  upon 
his  other  meanings,  and  the  passages  cited 
to  confirm  them  ;  nor  is  it  necessary,  as 
they  cannot  alter,  or  in  any  way  affect, 
the  significations  of  the  word  in  the  passage 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORDS    SUPPER. 

under  consideration.  The  point  to  be  de- 
termined here  is,  what  is  meant  by  the 
communion  of  the  body  and  blood  of  our 
Lord  ;  arid  that  it  can  mean  any  thing  else 
than  direct,  actual  communion,  it  is  im- 
possible to  prove,  and  idle  to  assert.  Dr. 
S.,  evidently  conscious  of  the  difficulty  un- 
der which  he  labours  here,  comes  to  the 
conclusion  already  referred  to  :  "  The  cup 
of  blessing — is  it  not  the  communion,  does 
it  not  bring  us  spiritually  into  communion 
with  the  body  of  Christ,"  &c. — in  which, 
altering  the  apostle's  language,  he  makes 
the  cup  the  communion  of  the  body.  But 
as  he  has  decided  (p.  42.),  that  any  thing 
spiritual  affirmed  concerning  bodies,  or  any 
thing  spiritually  affirmed  respecting  them., 
is  a  contradiction  in  terms,  we  do  not  see 
why  we  should  give  ourselves  any  further 
trouble  on  this  point. — 

But  he  goes  on  to  speak  of  1  Cor.  x.  18., 
"are  not  they  who  eat  of  the  sacrifices, 
partakers  of  the  altar  ?"  We  cannot  dis- 
cover what  service  this  passage  is  to  render 
him  here.  Communion  with  the  altar,  and 
participation  in  the  blessing  connected  with 
its  sacred  use,  were  in  part  effected  b\r 
10 


110  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

eating  the  sacrifice  which  lay  upon  the 
altar.  The  presence  of  Christ's  body  and 
blood,  in  connexion  with  visible  signs,  ren- 
ders the  Eucharist  a  Sacrament,  a  sacred 
mystery  ;  and  we  partake  of  the  fulness  of 
its  blessing,  by  receiving,  in,  with,  or  under 
the  consecrated  elements,  the  body  and 
blood  of  that  Lamb  that  was  slain  for  the 
remission  of  sins.  While  we  admit  that, 
1  Cor.  x.  16.,  does  not  definitely  determine 
any  thing  as  respects  the  relation  of  Christ's 
body  and  blood,  in  the  Sacrament,  to  the 
bread  and  wine,  but  only  asserts  positively 
our  communion  with  his  body  and  blood, 
verse  18  can,  by  no  ingenuity,  be  made  to 
say  any  thing  against  our  view :  it  is,  as 
far  as  it  has  any  bearing  upon  the  subject 
before  us,  decidedly  in  our  favour.  All  the 
sacrifices  under  the  old  covenant  were  types 
of  Christ,  our  sin-offering  :  and  in  the  fact, 
that  a  great  part  of  the  victim  was  eaten, 
we  can  scarcely  help  discovering  some  typi- 
cal reference  to  the  mysteries  of  the  Sacra- 
ment of  the  altar.  As  to  what  the  Doctor 
says  about  the  Jews  eating  the  God  whom 
they  worshipped,  we  have  nothing  to  do 
with,  or  to  say  about,  such  enormities. 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.      Ill 

Our  author  next  cites  v.  20.,  and  then 
asks  :  "  Who  would  suppose  that  the  gen- 
tiles, in  their  sacrifices,  had  communion 
with  the  bodies  of  the  dead  heroes  and 
demigods  whom  they  worshipped?"  No 
one,  probably,  entertains  any  such  non 
sense. — "Yet,  if  the  word  xonant*  and  *««»«»»«« 
in  the  one  case  means  the  actual  partici- 
pation of  the  flesh  and  body  of  the  being 
commemorated,  what  reason  can  be  as- 
signed for  its  having  so  different  a  signifi- 
cation in  the  other?"  Why  simply  this,  that 
in  the  one  case  the  body  and  blood  are  dis- 
tinctly specified,  in  the  other  not ;  and  that 
communion  with  a  body  can  only  mean 
what  the  words  directly  express,  while  fel- 
lowship with  devils  may  be  entirely  spirit- 
ual, or,  for  aught  we  know  to  the  contrary, 
bodily. — And  yet  there  is  even  here  a  sin- 
gular circumstance  to  be  noted,  viz.  that 
the  gods  were  supposed  to  feast  upon,  or 
to  eat  the  sacrifices  offered  them  ;  so  that 
even  here  there  is  an  eating  in  the  case, 
which  fact  we  do  not  mention  because  we 
attach  any  importance  to  the  crude  notions 
of  the  heathens,  but  because  it  is  quite  re- 
markable that  the  xofvW*  was  supposed  to 


112  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

be  effected  by  means  of  eating,  in  which 
the  Gentiles  considered  both  parties  to  take 
part. 

We  have  now  reached  that  part  of  our 
author's  treatise,  in  which  he  contests  the 
doctrine  of  the  hypostatic  union  of  the  two 
natures  in  Christ's  person,  and  of  the  con- 
sequent communicatio  idiomatum,  which 
has  been  so  fully  developed,  and  so  clearly 
and  satisfactorily  set  forth,  by  later  Luthe- 
ran divines,  in  strict  accordance  with  Lu- 
ther's view,  as  derived  from,  and  based 
upon,  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  Here  then 
is  the  proper  place  to  present  an  extended 
discussion  of  this  doctrine,  which  is  of  es- 
sential importance,  not  only  to  our  doctrine 
concerning  the  Eucharist,  but  equally  so 
to  that  of  the  atonement.  But  ere  we  pro- 
ceed to  perform  this  duty,  we  shall  first 
dispose  of  a  few  detached  positions  taken 
in  the  dissertation  before  us  : — to  take  up 
in  detail,  and  answer  in  extenso,  all  the 
assertions  made,  all  the  positions  taken,  all 
the  criticisms  presented,  all  the  conclusions 
drawn,  in  the  whole  course  of  the  Doctor's 
argument,  would  lead  us  entirely  too  far  : 
we  shall,  therefore,  merely  place  a  general 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.      113 

disquisition  in  opposition  to  his  general 
train  of  reasoning. 

But,  for  the  present  we  are  to  instance 
a  few  prominent  particulars.  And  first,  he 
again  asserts  that  Luther  himself  in  part 
rejected  a  theological  argument  or  theory 
in  favour  of  the  presence  of  the  body  of  the 
Saviour  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  more  amply 
developed  since  his  time.  He  again  fails 
to  specify  the  particular  view  which  Lu- 
ther is  alleged  to  have  rejected ;  and  we, 
left  to  conjecture,  and  supposing  that  he 
alludes  to  the  affair  referred  to  near  the 
commencement  of  our  present  article,  sim- 
ply assert  in  reply,  that  the  Doctor  is  mis- 
informed :  we  know  of  no  doctrinal  point 
respecting  the  Lord's  Supper  which  Luther, 
when  once  he  had  taken  this  ground,  ever 
gave  up. 

Secondly  :  Coloss.  ii.  9.  "  For  in  him 
dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead 
bodily  :"  c-^aT^s.  Dr.  S.  explains  this  pas- 
sage as  follows  :  "  This  passage  we  think 
naturally  signifies.  In  Christ  the  real  not 
imaginary,  the  full  divinity  and  not  an  infe- 
rior deity  dwells ;  that  is,  with  his  human  na- 
ture the  truly  divine  nature  is  really  not 
10* 


114  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

figuratively,  or  typically,  but  actually 
united  wpaTtMs  personally,  that  is,  into  one 
person."  This  exposition  is  simply  our  au- 
thor's own,  entirely  arbitrary,  and  fortified 
by  not  one  satisfactory  reason.  In  the  first 
place,  how  can  St.  Paul  be  suspected  of 
having  even  for  one  moment  thought  of  in- 
ferior deities  in  this  connexion  ?  Does  he 
ever  manifest  any  fear,  lest  those  whom  he 
addressed  should  conceive  that  some  fa- 
bulous divinity  of  heathen  mythology  had 
become  united  to  the  person  of  Christ  ?  We 
do  not  understand  how  inferior  deities  can 
at  all  come  into  consideration  here.  But 
again,  we  fear  that  Dr.  S.  has  but  a  very 
indifferent  opinion  of  St.  Paul's  philologi- 
cal acquirements,  and  power  of  language. 
If  the  apostle  meant  to  say:  really,  truly, 
actually,  verily,  fully,  why  did  he  not  use 
one  of  the  many  words  which  his  know- 
ledge of  the  copious  Greek  language  af- 
forded him,  to  express  this  meaning  ?  Why, 
if  he  meant  no  more  than  this,  did  he  make 
a  new  word  to  express  a  distinct  and  differ- 
ent meaning  ?  For,  be  it  observed,  neither 
the  adjective  e-afvernZs,  nor  the  adverb 
»$,  is  a  classical  word :  both  occur 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.      115 

only  in  ecclesiastical  writers,  by  whom  they 
were  doubtless  adopted  from  the  N.  Tes- 
tament, in  which  the  adverb  under  consider- 
ation occurs  only  in  this  one  place.  Ac- 
cording to  the  Doctor's  criticism,  both  of 
this  passage  and  of  1  Cor.  xi.  27,  St.  Paul 
must  be  regarded  [and  what  right  have  we 
thus  to  criticise  an  inspired  writer]  as  hav- 
ing indulged  in  an  extraordinary  infelicity 
of  expression,  if  by  *Sft*  and  *ip.x.  he  did 
not  mean  body  and  blood,  and  by  r*^MWv*»« 
not  bodily,  but  really,  truly,  fully.  The 
other  passages  of  Scripture  here  cited  have 
no  bearing  on  the  case,  for  they  are  not 
parallel ;  and  the  quotations  from  the  clas- 
sics have  no  more  to  do  with  the  matter 
than  the  death-song  of  Regner  Lodbrok. 
If  they  determine  any  thing  at  all  with  re- 
gard to  the  matter  before  us,  it  must  be  by 
serving  to  show  that  the  apostle's  language 
means,  that  the  person  of  the  Godhead 
dwell eth  in  Christ ;  which,  we  acknowledge, 
would  be  quite  unintelligible  to  us.  St. 
Paul  cannot  here  have  intended  to  inform 
the  Colossians  merely,  that  the  Deity  was 
united  with  humanity  in  Christ's  person : 
this  idea  he  could  have  expressed  and  did 


116  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

elsewhere  express,  in  suitable  language  : 
he  evidently  meant  what  he  does  say,  viz  : 
that  the  fulness  of  the  divine  nature  per- 
vaded Christ's  body,  and  that  thus  his  hu- 
manity was  made  to  partake  fully  of  the 
Divine  nature.  We  commend  to  consider- 
ation the  following  exposition  of  this  pas- 
sage by  Dr.  Albert  Barnes,  whose  critical 
vision  was  not  blinded  by  polemic  zeal 
against  the  doctrine  of  the  communicatio 
idiomatum  :  and  although  his  explanation 
does  not  satisfy  us  entirely,  it  goes  far  be- 
yond Dr.  Schmucker's  interpretations.  We 
cite  only  the  interpretation  :  for  the  sound 
reasons  with  which  he  vindicates  and  forti- 
fies it  against  heretics,  see  Barnes  in  loc. — 
"The  fair  sense  of  the  phrase  is,  that  the 
fulness  of  the  divine  nature  became  in- 
carnate, and  was  indwelling  in  the  body 
of  the  Redeemer."  Again;  "The  mean- 
ing is,  that  it  was  not  any  one  attribute 
of  the  Deity  that  became  incarnate  in 
the  Saviour ;  that  he  was  not  merely  en- 
dowed with  the  knowledge,  or  the  power, 
or  the  wisdom  of  God  ;  but  that  the  whole 
Deity  thus  became  incarnate,  and  appeared 
in  human  form." 


DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER.  117 

Thirdly.  Matt,  xxiii.  18.  It  is  aston- 
ishing how  the  necessity  of  hunting  up  ar- 
guments, wherewith  to  bolster  up  a  theory, 
can  lead  men  to  misunderstand  the  lan- 
guage of  Scripture.  A  number  of  passages 
are  here  cited  to  show  that  ££#?•<«,  power, 
means,  in  this  place,  "not  power  or  omni- 
potence ;  but  all  or  full  authority  to  com- 
mand and  direct  all  things  on  earth  to  the 
accomplishment  of  the  purposes  of  his  me- 
diatorial reign."  Is  this  really  all  that  is 
expressed  by  the  words  :  "all  power  [or,  if 
you  will,  authority]  in  heaven  and  on 
earth  ?"  If  so,  we  shall  have  to  go  to  school 
again,  to  learn  the  use  and  power  of  words. 
Admitting  even,  that  the  Saviour  told  his 
disciples  this  for  the  purpose  of  assuring 
them,  that  he  was  able  to  control  and  over- 
rule all  things  for  the  good  of  his  church, 
he  grounds  his  declaration  upon  the  fact, 
that  all  power,  all  authority,  in  heaven  and 
on  earth,  was  vested  in  him.  And  suppose 
even  this  were  no  appeal  to  his  omnipo- 
tence, what  matters  that,  if,  according  to 
other  Scripture  passages,  e.  g.  Phil.  iii. 
21.,  he  possesses  this  attribute?  Hence 
even  the  angels  worship  him:  "Jesus 


118   SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

Christ,  who  is  gone  into  heaven,  and  is  qn 
the  right  hand  of  God,  angels,  and  author- 
ities, and  powers  being  made  subject  to 
him."  (1  Pet.  iii.  22.) 

To  the  doctrine  of  the  ubiquity  of  the 
body  of  Christ,  our  author  brings  forth  nu- 
merous, and  as  he  thinks,  formidable  objec- 
tions. 

1.  "The  idea  that  the  properties  of  one 
substance  can  become  the  properties  of  a 
different  substance,  is  a  philosophical  ab- 
surdity." Is  it  indeed?  Why  there  are 
hundreds  of  chemical  processes  which  di- 
rectly contradict  this  statement ;  but  we 
cannot  tarry  to  specify.  We  shall,  how- 
ever, present  a  few  facts,  by  which  this 
philosophical  absurdity  is  effectually  done 
away  with. — Canton's  Phosphorus,  and  a 
variety  of  other  substances,  upon  being  ex- 
posed to  the  light,  themselves  become  lu- 
minous, so  as  to  give  out  light  in  the  dark ; 
and  this  property  they  retain  for  some  time. 
Again  :  when  you  isolate  a  man  by  placing 
him  upon  glass,  and  then,  having  brought 
him  into  communication  with  a  foreign  and 
different  object,  in  the  shape  of  an  electric 
machine,  and  pass  into  him  a  stream  of  the 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.      119 

electric  fluid,  you  may  perfectly  saturate 
him  with  electricity,  making  this  so  com- 
pletely, for  a  time,  a  property  of  his  whole 
body,  that,  touch  him  at  any  point,  you 
draw  forth  electric  sparks  ;  and  yet,  though 
electricity  has  thus  temporarily  become  a 
property  of  his  body,  its  own  properties 
remain  the  same,  undergoing  no  change. 
The  next  is  better. — When  hardened  steel 
is  brought  into  contact  with  a  magnet,  it  be- 
comes magnetic  ;  in  other  words,  the  pro- 
perties of  the  magnet  become  the  proper- 
ties of  the  steel,  which  retains  them  per- 
manently, and  in  effective  activity,  without 
therefore  losing  any  of  its  own  properties, 
and  without  robbing  the  magnet  of  its  pro- 
perties. But  we  have  a  still  stronger  case. 
At  the  marriage  in  Cana  our  Lord  com- 
manded the  servants  to  fill  six  large  water- 
pots  with  water :  they  did  so,  and  they  all 
knewr  that  nothing  but  water  had  been  put 
into  the  pots  :  and  when  now  he  ordered 
them  to  draw  out,  and  to  bear  unto  the  go- 
vernor of  the  feast,  it  was  found  to  be  wine, 
much  better  than  they  had  yet  had :  the 
distinctive  properties  of  the  water  had  dis- 
appeared, and  it  had  received  in  their  place, 


1*20  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

to  all  intents  and  purposes,  as  evidenced 
by  the  senses  of  sight  and  taste,  the  pro- 
perties of  excellent  wine.  The  case  af- 
fords a  perfect  refutation  of  our  author's  as- 
sertion. Of  course,  the  plea  that  this  was 
a  miracle,  can  be  of  no  possible  use  to  him : 
we  are  speaking  now  of  that  very  personage 
who  wrought  this  miracle ;  and  the  only 
question  at  issue  here  is,  whether  it  is  pos- 
sible for  the  properties  of  one  object  or  sub- 
stance to  become  the  properties  of  another 
object  or  substance,  which  is  here  conclu- 
sively demonstrated  by  a  plain  matter  of 
fact. 

"  It  is  impossible,  in  the  nature  of  things, 
that  the  infinite  properties  of  God,  the  un- 
created one,  should  be  communicated  to 
any  creature,"  &c.  This  assertion,  if  it 
were  true,  would  be  utterly  subversive  of  the 
doctrine  of  Christ's  Divinity.  If  the  decla- 
ration of  Scripture  that  God  became  in- 
carnate, means  nothing  more  than  that  God 
employed  a  human  being,  called  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  as  an  instrument  for  the  mani- 
festation of  his  goodness,  compassion  and 
love  towards  our  race,  without  communi- 
cating to  that  personage  his  own  divine  at- 


DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LORDS  SUPPER.  121 

tributes,  then,  certainly,  Trinitarians  are 
making  a  very  needless  ado  about  the  divi- 
nity of  Christ ;  for  this  is  precisely  what 
we  assert,  in  opposition  to  Unitarians  and 
Socinians,  not  only  that  there  are  three 
persons  in  the  Deity  but  that  Christ  Jesus, 
the  Mediator,  is,  in  his  entire  personality, 
Divine,  and  the  Second  Person  in  the  Tri- 
nity. Tf  the  human  nature  and  form  of 
Christ  were  nothing  but  a  mask,  behind 
and  under  which  the  Almighty  spoke  and 
acted,  leaving  that  nature  entirely  unaf- 
fected by  the  indwelling  Divinity,  entering 
into  no  absolute,  intimate,  inseparable  union 
with  it,  communicating  to  it  no  divine  at- 
tributes, the  whole  event  ceases  to  be  any 
thing  more  wonderful  than  the  inspiration 
of  the  prophets,  and  we  can  only  be  sur- 
prised that  St.  Paul  should  speak  of  it  as 
a  great  mystery:  "Without  controversy, 
great  is  the  mystery  of  godliness :  God 
was  manifest  in  the  flesh,  justified  in  the 
spirit,  seen  of  angels,  preached  unto  the 
Gentiles,  believed  on  in  the  world,  received 
up  into  glory."  1  Tim.  iii.  16.  But  such 
positions  are  wide  of  the  truth.  To  use 
Dr.  Schmucker's  own  language,  only  be- 


122  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

ginning-  with  as  for  z/,  and  referring  to  the 
expositions  of  the  Communio  naturarum, 
and  of  the  Communicatio  idiomatum,  for  a 
full  exhibition  of  our  meaning,  we  say :  "  as 
the  human  nature  of  Christ  acquired  pos- 
session of  divine  attributes,  it  must  itself 
be  divine."  "  Yes,  the  finite  has  become 
infinite,  the  creature  has  become  the  Crea- 
tor, and  a  feeble  mortal  like  unto  us,  in  all 
things,  sin  only  excepted,  has  become  the 
immortal  God."  To  deny  this,  as  herein- 
after explained,  is  Docetism  and  Socinian- 
ism.  We  by  no  means  intend  to  charge 
our  author  with  these  heresies :  we  know 
that  he  abbors  them  as  much  as  we  do; 
but  we  contend  that  he  makes  assertions 
in  this  article,  which,  when  carried  out  into 
their  legitimate  consequences,  must  lead  to 
them. 

Nor  is  the  Doctor  more  happy  in  stating, 
3.  this  general  principle,  that,  ''wherever 
any  one  divine  attribute  is  found,  there  the 
others  must  also  be,  and  that  is  God." 
This  is  not  as  universally  and  absolutely 
true  as  is  here  taken  for  granted.  Is  fore- 
knowledge, the  power  of  foreseeing,  and 
distinctly  foretelling  very  remote  future 


DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER.        123 

events,  a  divine  attribute  ?  Yes.  But  pro- 
phets and  apostles  possessed  it,  without 
having  all,  and  becoming  gods.  Is  the 
power  of  working  miracles,  of  controlling 
nature,  of  healing  diseases  with  a  word  or 
a  touch,  nay,  of  raising  the  dead,  a  divine 
attribute  ?  Yes  •  yet  prophets  and  apostles 
possessed  and  exercised  it ;  thus  showing 
that  God  can  delegate,  in  a  measure,  to  or- 
dinary human  beings,  attributes  entirely 
his  own,  without  making  them  his  equals. 
How  different,  however,  is  the  case  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  in  whom  dwelleth  all 
the  fulness  of  the  godhead  bodily,  and  who 
himself  bestowed  upon  his  servants  a  mea- 
sure of  those  powers  which  we  have  just  in- 
stanced. 

4.  "If  the  hypostatic  union  in  Christ 
implies  a  communication  of  attributes,  it 
must  be  reciprocal,  and  whilst  the  humanity 
of  Christ  is  clothed  in  the  attributes  of  di- 
vinity, his  divinity  must  also  have  assumed 
the  attributes  of  humanity ;  have  become 
human  ;  which  the  opponents  are  unwilling 
to  admit."  This  is  a  mere  assumption,  an 
authoritative  dictum,  to  which  we  demur. 
We  do  admit,  and  most  firmly  believe,  that 


124  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

the  Scriptures  speak  truth  when  they  say, 
that  "the  Word  was  made  flesh"— that 
"  God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh :"  i.  e.  ac- 
cepted, received,  assumed,  took  to  himself 
our  nature,  in  all  its  essential  attrihutes ; 
from  which  sin  is,  of  course,  excluded.  Dr. 
Schmucker  himself  says,  in  his  usual 
guarded  phraseology  :  "  Yet  with  the  man 
Jesus  there  was  united  another  invisible 
being,  of  a  very  different  nature  and  higher 
order,  called  Son  of  God,  and  united  in  such 
a  manner  as  to  form  a  just  basis  for  the  re- 
ciprocal ascription  of  attributes  taken  from 
either  nature,  to  the  one  being  or  person." 
(Pop.  Theol.  p.  55.)  United  means  made 
one  with.  If  Christ  is  one  being  or  person, 
it  is  perfectly  obvious  that  the  two  natures 
in  him  cannot  merely  be  loosely  associated 
with  each  other,  but  must  be  united  in  the 
most  intimate  and  inseparable  union.  It  is 
impossible  to  conceive,  that  there  could  be  a 
real,  veritable  unity  or  oneness  of  person 
in  Christ,  unless  there  were  an  actual  inter- 
communication of  natures,  if  neither  nature 
communicated  any  thing  to  the  other.  If 
there  be  no  intercommunication  of  natures, 
hence  no  communion  of  natures,  how  can 


it  be  said  that  "the  Word  was  made  flesh" 
— in  other  words,  that  God  became  man  ? — 
Then  can  the  union  be  fitly  likened  only  to 
a  double  wax  figure,  consisting  of  two  fig- 
ures glued  together  at  the  side  or  back ; 
and  the  acts  of  this  double  person  would 
be  like  the  interlocking  of  two  cog-wheels. 
And,  if  such  be  the  union,  how  can  it  com- 
municate an  infinite  value  to  the  obedience, 
the  sufferings  and  death  of  the  man  Jesus, 
if  the  divine  Logos  merely  exists  along- 
side of  him,  without  partaking  of  his  suf- 
ferings, in  consequence  of  the  assumption 
of  human  nature — of  its  essential  proper- 
ties ?  If,  on  the  one  hand,  the  divine  nature 
does  not  participate  in  the  states  and  suf- 
ferings of  the  human,  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  human  nature  does  not,  beyond 
and  over  its  natural  finite,  limited  proper- 
ties, receive  also  the  essential  idiomata  of 
the  divine,  the  unity  or  oneness  of  person 
which  we  are  taught  to  believe  exists  in 
Christ,  must  be  regarded  as  impossible. 
The  Scriptures  positively  declare,  that  "  the 
Logos  became  flesh:"  that  he  "was  made 
in  the  likeness  of  men  ;"  and  what  else  can 
this  mean,  than  that  he  assumed  the  at- 
11* 


126  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

tributes,  the  essential  properties  of  human- 
ity ?  And,  although  we  may  truly  say, 
that  humanity  has  nothing  to  confer  or  be- 
stow upon  God,  not  having  any  thing  that 
it  has  not  received  from  God,  it  is  evident, 
being  clearly  and  fully  revealed  in  Scrip- 
ture, that  it  pleased  the  second  hypostasis 
in  the  Deity  to  take  upon  him  all  the  pro- 
perties of  humanity,  without  its  sin,  not  of 
course,  thereby  to  enrich  and  ennoble  him- 
self, but  to  enrich,  elevate  and  ennoble 
human  nature,  and  to  assimilate  it  to  the 
divine.  On  the  reciprocal  communication 
of  attributes  or  properties,  see  Thomasius : 
"Beitraege  zur  kirchlichen  Christologie,'' 
a  translation  of  which  is  in  course  of  pub- 
lication in  the  Evangelical  Review.  The 
reader  is  also  referred  to :  Das  Bekennt- 
niss  der  Ev.  Luth.  Kirche  in  der  Conse- 
quenz  seines  Princips,  von  Thomasius,  p. 
204  sqq, 

5.  "  If  this  hypostatic  union,"  says  our  au- 
thor, "is  attended  by  a  transfer  of  attri- 
butes, it  necessarily  involves  a  confusion  of 
natures,  which  error  was  condemned  by 
the  ancient  church  in  the  Eutychians.  And 
if  it  was  such  as  to  preserve  the  attributes 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.      127 

of  each  nature  distinct,  then  there  can  be 
no  real  transfer  of  attributes."  Answer : 
We  teach,  that  in  Christ  there  were  two 
natures  in  one  person.  Does  Dr.  S.  deny, 
that  in  Christ  the  divine  and  human  natures 
are  intimately  and  inseparably  united,  so 
as  to  constitute  the  one  God-man  ?  If  not, 
(and  without  running  into  positive  heresy, 
he  cannot),  he  has,  if  he  refuses  to  adopt 
the  distinct  definitions  of  the  Lutheran 
Church,  no  alternative  but  to  mix  up  the 
two  natures  in  indiscriminate  confusion ; 
for  there  is  no  way  of  keeping  them  dis- 
tinct, while  yet  inseparably  united,  except 
by  receiving  the  doctrine  of  the  communi- 
catio  idiomatum,  without  utterly  denying 
the  validity  and  efficacy  of  the  atonement. 
For  a  more  extended  discussion  of  this 
point,  as  also  of  the  Doctor's  9th  objection, 
wre  refer  to  the  remarks  on  the  Comm. 
Idiomatum  on  a  following  page. 

6.  "The  doctrine,"  we  are  further  told, 
"  of  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's  body,  instead  of 
conferring  more  importance  on  the  Eucha- 
rist, actually  robs  it  of  all  special  interest, 
and  gives  no  more  to  the  Sacrament  than 
to  every  other  object  and  place.  We  may 


128  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

upon  this  theory,  as  well  say  that  Christ's 
body  is  in,  with  or  under,  every  apple  and 
pear,  peach  and  cake,  as  in  the  consecrated 
bread."  This  is  a  strange  position  for  a 
believer  in  the  Bible  to  take.  Granted 
that  we  hold  that,  by  virtue  of  the  hypo- 
static  union  and  the  consequent  comm. 
idiom.,  Christ  is  omnipresent  in  both  his 
natures,  or  rather  in  the  undivided  integrity 
of  his  person,  does  this  prove  that  he  is  not 
present  in  the  Eucharist  in  a  peculiar  man- 
ner, for  a  special  purpose,  to  be  received 
in  a  special,  mysterious  and  inexplicable 
manner  by  those  who  engage  in  this  ordi- 
nance ?  Does  the  certainty  of  God's  omni- 
presence prove,  that  all  that  we  read  in 
the  Old  Testament  respecting  his  being,  in 
a  special  manner,  for  the  communication 
of  special  favours,  and  the  accomplishment 
of  special  purposes,  with  Moses,  with  Is- 
rael in  the  desert,  in  the  tabernacle,  in  the 
temple,  with  Samuel  and  other  judges, 
with  David  and  other  godly  kings,  with 
prophets,  with  armies,  and  with  many  pious 
individuals,  is  all  false,  simply  because 
some  men  assert,  that  there  can  be  no  spe- 
cial presence  where  there  is  a  general  omni- 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.     129 

presence  ?  Nothing  but  the  great  length  of 
this  article  prevents  us  from  inserting  here, 
Luther's  admirable  reasoning  on  this  point. 
See  the  work  above  referred  to,  p.  158. 
Note. 

7.  "Nay,  this  doctrine    is  not  entirely 
exempt  from  liability  to  the  charge  of  fa- 
vouring pantheism"  fyc.    With  what  char- 
acteristic   circumspection    this    statement 
is  worded. — The  subject  embraced  by  this 
paragraph  is  one  of  vast  compass  and  pro- 
found   mystery    (see    Knapp's    Theology, 
Vol.  I.  p.  202,  sqq.),  and  to  discuss  it  here 
in  extenso  would  lead  us  entirely  too  far. 
And  therefore  we  simply  reply  to  this  ob- 
jection, that  our  doctrine  is  not  one  iota 
more  liable  to  the  charge  of  favouring  pan- 
theism, than  is  the  doctrine  of  the  divine 
omnipresence,  and  that  Dr.  S.  knows  right 
well. 

8.  "If,"  says  our  author  further,  "the 
glorified  body  of  Christ  is  really  in,  with, 
or  under  the  bread,  it  will  be  very  proper 
to  direct  our  worship  towards  the  bread, 
and  thus  adore  the  present  God-man  who 
is  some-how  connected  with  it."     This  ob- 
jection is  so  puerile  and  scandalous,  that  it 


130  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

does  not  deserve  a  reply.  Dr.  S.,  however, 
answers  it  himself  in  the  concluding  lines 
of  this  paragraph.  He  seems  to  see  quite 
satisfactory  reason  for  doing  what  he  is 
pleased  here  sneeringly  to  censure.  "  For," 
says  he,  "we  know  that  his  divine  nature 
is  there,  as  it  is  omnipresent :  and  therefore 
we  would  have  as  much  reason  to  worship 
towards  the  bread  as  if  he  were  personally 
and  visibly  to  appear  in  connexion  with  it." 
If,  then,  the  presence  of  Christ's  divine 
nature,  which  he  allows,  constitutes,  as  he 
here  asserts,  as  much  reason  to  worship 
towards  the  bread  as  if  he  were  personally 
and  visibly  to  appear  in  connexion  with  it, 
we  do  not  see  on  what  grounds  he  abstains 
from  an  act,  the  propriety  of  which  he  thus 
alleges.  It  is  quite  obvious  that  he  per- 
ceives a  reason  for  the  act,  quite  indepen- 
dent of  the  sacramental  presence  which  we 
advocate.  We  are  well  satisfied  to  receive 
the  consecrated  elements  in  the  Eucharist, 
in  the  manner  prescribed  by  our  Lord  him- 
self; to  our  author  we  leave  the  satisfaction 
of  engaging  in  the  popish  worship  of  the 
consecrated  bread,  as  he  seems  to  be  tho- 
roughly convinced  of  its  propriety. 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.      131 

Finally,  our  author  totally  denies  that 
our  Lord's  discourse,  recorded  John  vi. 
25 — 56.,  has  any  reference  to  the  Holy 
Supper.  We  shall  presently  show  that  it 
has  ;  but  we  must  first  notice  briefly  two 
particular  objections  advanced  in  this  con- 
nexion.— 1.,  "  If  this  passage  [John  vi.  56] 
teaches  a  physical  eating  and  indwelling  of 
the  Saviour's  body  in  the  communicant, 
it  also  affirms  that  the  communicant's  body 
dwells  in  the  body  of  the  Saviour,  which  is 
absurd."  True  enough,  absurd.  Our  author 
reasons  here  again  on  the  assumption,  that 
Lutherans  teach  a  gross,  materially  sensu- 
ous, Capernaitish  eating  of  Christ's  body  ; 
but  while  we  believe  that  the  Saviour's  glo- 
rified humanity  is,  in  a  mysterious,  inexpli- 
cable manner,  received  by  the  communicant 
in  partaking  of  the  bread  and  wine,  and  see 
no  difficulty  in  the  case  at  all,  we  know 
very  well  that  our  gross,  material  and  pol- 
luted bodies  cannot  be  transferred  into  his 
glorified  body  :  we  do  not  believe  that  the 
Scriptures  teach  impossibilities  :  we  admit 
that  this  our  dwelling  in  Christ  is  by  faith ; 
and  Dr.  S.  ought  to  know  that  his  inference 
here  is  a  non  sequitur,  just  as  much  so,  as 


132  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

if  he  were  to  maintain  that,  because  Je- 
hovah dwelt,  in  the  visible  form  of  the 
Schechinah,  in  the  tabernacle  and  in  the 
temple  of  the  Old  Covenant,  therefore  the 
tabernacle  and  *the  temple  dwelt  bodily  in 
him  :  and  that  the  Jewish  nation  had  dwelt 
bodily  in  God,  because  Moses  addressed 
the  Lord  thus  :  "  Lord,  thou  hast  been  our 
dwelling-place  in  all  generations."  Our 
dwelling  in  Christ  is  here  represented  as 
the  effect  or  result  of  our  receiving  him, 
and  is  further  explained  in  the  following 
verse:  "he  that  eateth  me,  even  he  shall 
live  by  me  ;"  and  thus  we  are  really  in  him, 
in  a  spiritual  sense,  in  that  he  is  our  life ; 
that  in  him  we  live,  and  move,  and  have 
our  being  physically,  and  that  out  of  him 
we  have  no  spiritual  life  at  all. 

2.  A  few  words  on  the  assertion,  that 
"  the  union  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ" 
"  produced  not  even  a  shadow  of  a  com- 
municatio  idiomatum  (transfer  or  communi- 
cation of  attributes)  on  earth,"  &c. — here 
follow  inferences.  How  can  our  Author 
hazard  such  an  assertion,  in  the  face  of 
such  passages  as  Matt,  xxviii.  18,  John  v. 
22.  26,  27.  &c.?  That  omnipotence  be- 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD^S    SUPPER.      133 

longed  to  God ;  that  the  right  to  judge  all 
men,  and  the  authority  to  execute  judg- 
ment, pertaineth  unto  God,  the  disciples 
knew,  and  had  no  need  of  being  so  solemn- 
ly informed,  even  if  to  communicate  this 
information  had  been  (which  is  quite  out 
of  the  question)  the  Saviour's  design. 
There  is  nothing  more  perfectly  clear  than 
this,  that  the  Saviour  here  declares,  in  his 
human  nature,  that  omnipotence  and  the 
authority  to  hold  the  judgment,  were  con- 
ferred upon  him  :  it  was  not  necessary  to 
give  his  divine  nature  what  this  already 
possessed :  nay,  he  himself  adds,  v.  27. 
"  because  he  is  the  Son  of  Man." 

We  are  now  ready  for  the  general  ques- 
tion, whether  John  vi.  25 — 56.,  has  any 
reference  to  the  Lord's  Supper.*  That 
such  was  the  view  held  by  the  primitive 
Church,  is  certain  ;  so  that  "  even  Lampe," 
who  would  have  been  glad  to  deny  it,  if 
this  had  been  possible,  "is  compelled  to 
acknowledge :  '  It  cannot  be  denied  that 
the  majority  of  the  Fathers  understood  this 

*  The  substance  of  our  remarks  on  this  point, 
and  the  sentences  in  marks  of  quotation,  are  taken 
from  Stier's  Commentary,  Vol.  IY.  p.  310,  sqq. 
12 


134  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

portion  of  Scripture  to  speak  of  a  sacra- 
mental manducation.'  "*  "  Nothing  is  more 
simple  than  the  view  which  was  held  of 
old,  that  the  Evangelist  John,  who  records 
historically  neither  the  appointment  of  bap- 
tism, nor  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, reports  instead,  how,  in  Chap,  iii.,  the 
Lord  speaks  prophetically  of  the  essential 
nature  of  baptism,  and  here,  in  Ch.  vi.,  in  like 
manner  of  the  Holy  Supper.  Thus  much,  at 
least,  von  Gerlach  also  admits  :  '  as  baptism 
is  the  sacrament  of  regeneration  through 
water  and  the  Spirit,  so  is  the  Holy  Supper 
of  our  Lord  the  Sacrament  of  this  restora- 
tion to  life,  and  renewal  through  the  flesh 
and  blood  of  Christ,  and  sustains  therefore 
the  same  relation  to  this  discourse,  as  bap- 
tism to  the  conversation  with  Nicodemus.'" 
There  is  an  obvious  reciprocal  relation  be- 
tween the  discourse  in  this  chapter,  and  the 
words  of  the  institution,  which  renders  it 
proper,  and  even  necessary,  to  explain  each 
by  the  other,  just  as  the  works  of  God 
throw  the  right  light  upon  his  words,  and 

*  "  Negari  nequit,  Patrum  maximum  numerum 
nostrum  locum  de  sacramental!  manducatione  in- 
tellexisse." 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.     135 

vice  versa,  his  words  throw  the  right  light 
upon  his  works.      The  connexion  is  here 
so  obvious,  that  it  is  impossible  to  conceive 
how  Luther  and  other  critics  should  have 
failed  to  perceive  and  urge  it.     "  Can  it  be 
conceived  that  our  Lord,  when,  being  on 
the  point  of  giving  his  flesh  for  the  life  of 
the  world,  he  ordained  for  the  future  the 
eating  of  his  body  and  the  drinking  of  his 
blood,   should  not  have  had  in  his  mind 
what  he  had  said  in  Capernaum,  and  not 
have  reminded  his  disciples  of  it  ?  That  the 
two  should  be  without  any  connexion  ?     It 
will  always  be  impossible  for  us  to  assert 
any  such  thing.     And  if,  as  would  be  na- 
tural, it  should  at  the  same  time  be  said, 
that   Christ,  when  discoursing  at   Caper- 
naum, had  not  at  all  thought  of  the  future 
Sacrament,  we  regard  this  as  equally  im- 
possible, and  inconceivable.     Bengel  says : 
'  This  Sacrament  is  of  such  importance,  that 
.  it  may  be  readily   conceived,  that  Jesus, 
Just  as  he  predicted  the  treachery  of  Judas 
i(v.  71.),  and  his  death,  had  in  the  same 
•manner  predicted,  a  year  before  [its  insti- 
tution], also  the  Sacred  Supper,  of  which 
ihe   was  certainly  thinking  while  uttering 


136  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

these  words,  in  order  that  his  disciples 
might  afterwards  remember  his  prediction. 
This  whole  discourse  respecting  the  flesh 
and  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  has  reference  to 
his  passion,  and  with  it  to  the  Sacred  Sup- 
per. For  this  reason  the  flesh  and  blood 
are  throughout  mentioned  separately.'  "* 

Admitting  that  there  may  be  an  extra- 
sacramental  communion,  a  spiritual  recep- 
tion of  his  flesh  and  blood  by  faith,  "this 
cannot  be  regarded  as  a  spiritualis  fruitio 
or  manducatio  in  the  strictest  sense,  as  op- 
posed to  all  corporeity ;  for  without,  as  well 
as  in,  the  Sacrament,  that  which  we  re- 
ceived remains  truly  <?«•&  **«  #!,«.*  [flesh  and 
blood],  and  consequently  there  is  an  eating 
and  drinking  with  the  mouth  of  the  inward 
man.  And  hence  the  words  of  the  insti- 
tution are  to  be  interpreted  according  to 

*  Tanti  hoc  sacramentum  est  momenti,  ut  facile 
existimari  possit,  Jesum,  ut  proditionem  Judas  v. 
71.,  et  mortem  suam,  ita  etiam  S.  Coenam,  de  qua 
inter  haec  verba  certissime  secum  cogitavit,  uno 
ante  anno  praedixisse,  ut  discipuli  possent  prae- 
dictionis  postea  recordari.  Tota  haec  de  carne  et 
sanguine  J.  C.  oratio  passionem  spectat  et  cum 
ea  S.  Coenam.  Hinc  separata  carnis  et  sanguinis 
mentio  constanter." 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.      137 

John  vi.,"  and,  in  return,  the  very  words 
of  the  institution  serve  to  show,  that  the 
Saviour  here  had  the  Sacred  Supper  in  his 
mind,  and  that  he  intended,  by  this  dis- 
course, to  prepare  the  minds  of  his  disciples 
for  the  institution  of  that  solemn  rite.  And 
"  precisely  because  they  were  Jews,  they 
could  understand  the  real  eating  and  drink- 
ing of  flesh  and  blood,  offered  in  sacrifice, 
much  better  than  the  ideal  reception  of  our 
speculative  theologians,  had  they  not  been 
blinded  by  the  prejudice,  which  led  them 
to  take  offence  at  the  human  personality 
in  which  he  appeared ;  .  .  .  especially  as, 
about  this  time,  the  reference  to  the  paschal 
lamb  was  obvious  to  the  hearers,  as  well 
as  to  the  speaker."  Even  the  incorrigibly 
perverse  Lange  maintains  here  that  rpuysiv^ 
used  for  0«y«v,  can  only  mean  to  eat,  really 
and  veritably."  It  is  here,  however,  in 
respect  of  this  discourse  in  the  6th  ch.  of 
John's  gospel,  that  the  figurative  theoiy  is 
most  strenuously  insisted  upon,  and  most 
liberally  applied.  Dr.  S.  even  refers  us 
to  v.  63.,  to  prove  by  it  the  justness  of 
his  figurative  interpretation ;  thus  only 

showing,  that  he  has  failed  to  discover  the 
12* 


138  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

correct  interpretation  of  this  verse.  The 
whole  context  shows,  that  it  was  designed 
to  set  right  the  Jews,  who  so  perversely 
and  grossly  misunderstood  him,  as  though 
he  had  meant  that  they  should  eat  him 
bodily  as  he  there  stood  before  them, 
and  as  an  ordinary  human  being,  such  as 
they  conceived  him  to  be.  Our  Lord  gra- 
ciously condescends  to  rectify  their  error, 
and  his  words  are  obviously  to  be  thus  in- 
terpreted :  what  you  understand  me  to 
mean,  is  not  what  I  intend :  mere  flesh, 
flesh  per  se,  as  flesh  destitute  of  spirit, 
which  you  think  I  am  speaking  of,  that  in- 
deed can  profit  nothing,  cannot  make  alive. 
But  how  comes  it  to  be  overlooked,  that 
in  this  verse  the  Saviour  does  not,  as  else- 
where in  this  chapter,  say  :  "  my  flesh  ?" 
Will  any  one  affirm  respecting  his  flesh,  his 
body,  »x  a<p£\ii  x$ev — it  profiteth  nothing  ? 
And  if  the  Lord  had  said  this  of  his  own 
flesh,  would  he  not  have  contradicted  what 
he  had,  a  few  minutes  before,  said,  when 
he  told  them  directly,  v.  51..,  that  his  flesh 
was  the  life  of  the  world  ?  But  when  Dr. 
S.  explains  this  :  "Here  the  Saviour  seems 
expressly  to  teach,  that  the  literal  eating 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.     139 

of  his  flesh  would  profit  them  nothing," 
how  is  it  that  he  does  not  perceive  that,  if 
his  explanation  were  correct,  this  verse 
would  just  as  clearly  and  positively  teach, 
that  the  literal  crucifixion  of  his  flesh,  the 
literal  breaking  of  his  body  on  the  cross, 
would  profit  them  nothing  ?  If  he  insists 
upon  his  interpretation,  on  the  grounds 
alleged,  in  the  one  case,  he  must,  to  be 
consistent,  accept  it  in  the  other.  Here 
then  we  say  with  Stier;  "as  regards  these 
words  of  the  Lord,  we  protest,  again  and 
again,  against  all  talk  about  l  figurative 
forms  of  speech.'  We  consider  it  entirely 
unworthy  of  the  Lord,  that  '  all  these  for- 
cibly impressive,  repeated,  accumulated 
figures  should  denote  nothing-  more  than 
the  spiritual  connexion  with  him,'  "  as  says 
J.  von  Miiller.  In  conclusion  on  this 
point,  we  translate  Stier's  concluding  re- 
marks on  v.  55.  After  insisting  that  «A«£05, 
and  not  as  Lachmann  prefers,  ctXvSy^  is  the 
correct  reading,  he  proceeds :  "  Away  then, 
in  the  presence  of  this  «*?$««,  with  all  ide- 
alities, put  in  the  place  of  ppans,  and  *•«»•/$, 
Qctyw  and  «ff«»,  and  even  in  the  place  of 
<r«,?l ;  and  with  all  abstractions  d  esigned  to 


140  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

explain  the  truth  which  is  given  in  the 
words  of  Jesus,  whilst,  in  reality,  they  de- 
tract from  and  enfeeble  it.  'The  Saviour 
certainly  did  not  ordinarily  speak  in  a  man- 
ner so  grossly  corporeal,  but  had,  on  the 
contrary,  at  all  times  spiritual  words  for 
spiritual  things  ;  and  when  he  spoke  figura- 
tively, he  never  did  it  in  such  a  way  that 
the  figure  was  greater  than  the  thing  signi- 
fied :  with  him  figure  was  reality,  as  his 
own  name  is  reality  [Bild  ist  bei  ihm  We- 
sen,  so  wie  sein  Name  Wesen  ist.].  If  it  was 
here  his  design  to  be  understood  only  in  a 
spiritual  sense,  why  did  he  not  employ  the 
expressions  so  frequently  used  elsewhere, 
which  are  surely  plain  and  strong  enough, 
and  why  did  he  not  retain  as  sufficient  the 
more  spiritual  term  :  Bread  of  Life  ?  Why 
does  he  speak  also  of  flesh,  and  even  of 
blood?  In  the  word  *  bread'  there  was 
figure  enough  to  make  his  meaning  clear : 
but  the  words  'flesh  and  blood,'  taken 
merely  as  a  figure,  could  contribute 
nothing  to  the  elucidation  of  his  meaning. 
And  when  he  moreover  perceived,  how 
greatly  the  Jews,  and  even  many  of  his 
disciples,  were  offended  at  his  words,  how 


141 

imperatively  did  his  wisdom  as  a  teacher, 
and  his  love,  require  that  he  should  clear 
up  the  misconception,  in  such  words,  per- 
haps, as  these  :  as  ye  eat  meat  (flesh)  and 
bread,  arid  thereby  receive  it  into  your- 
selves, so  shall  ye  receive  me  into  your 
hearts. — But,  in  the  very  face  of  the  doubts 
of  the  Jews,  he  goes  on  to  express  what  he 
had  said,  in  still  stronger  language,  and 
leaves  them  no  other  conclusion,  than  that 
they  must  eat  his  flesh  and  drink  his  blood. 
Nay  he  says  expressly  (emphatically)  my 
flesh  is  (truly)  meat  indeed,  and  my  blood 
is  (truly)  drink  indeed,  «Au3£$  [truly,  used 
in  each  instance.  TV.] ;  and  this  is  the  re- 
verse of  figurative  and  unreal?  (Kapff, 
Communionbuch,  p.  74,  sq.).  Yes  truly,  as 
even  Lange  premises,  without  knowing 
what  a  sentence  he  thus  pronounces  upon 
his  own  subsequent  abstractions :  *  he  de- 
clared in  a  manner  so  concrete,  so  definite, 
the  truth  that  with  his  flesh  and  blood  he 
was  the  real  life-bread  of  the  world.' " 

We  proceed  now  to  present,  in  as  brief 
a  space  as  possible,  the  view  which,  ac- 
cording to  our  Confessions,  our  Church 
still  holds  and  defends,  respecting  the  union 


142  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

of  the  two  natures  in  Christ,  and  the  com- 
municatio  idiomatum,  the  communication 
of  divine  attributes  to  Jesus  the  Son  of 
Man.  In  no  Church  has  a  profound,  thor- 
oughly scriptural,  and  perfectly  consistent 
Christology  been  so  fully  developed,  and 
so  satisfactorily  stated,  strictly  on  the  basis 
of  revealed  truth,  as  in  ours :  several  dis- 
tinguished living  divines  of  Germany  have 
produced  most  admirable  works  on  the 
great  theme ;  and  among  these  none  has 
written  with  more  clearness,  and  more  tri- 
umphantly confuted  the  objections  of  op- 
ponents, than  Thomasius,  in  his  "Beitrage 
zur  Kirchlichen  Christologie."  In  order 
to  exhibit  this  subject  in  all  its  fulness,  it 
would  be  necessary  to  translate  this  entire 
work :  but  the  dimensions,  to  which  this 
article  has  already  grown,  barely  leave  us 
room  for  two  fragmentary  extracts,  in  which 
a  great  deal  that  precedes  them  is  assumed 
to  be  now  perfectly  understood.  He  con- 
cludes his  work,  by  presenting,  under  five 
distinct  heads,  the  great  truths  which,  in 
the  preceding  dissertations,  he  had  com- 
pletely vindicated  against  the  objections  of 
all  sorts  of  opponents  ;  the  first  exhibits  in 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.      143 

full  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  the  hypo- 
static  union  ;  the  second  that  of  the  com- 
munio  naturarum ;  the  third  that  of  the 
communicatio  idiomatum.  We  can  barely 
make  room  for  the  second  and  third,  mark- 
ing them  I  and  II. 

I.     TJie  Communio  Naturarum. 

• 

"  If  we  consider,  on  the  basis  of  what  we 
have  thus  far  fully  ascertained,  the  person 
of  the  Redeemer,  we  have,  in  the  first  in- 
stance, the  genuineness  (Wahrheit)  of  his 
human  and  divine  nature.  For  his  human 
nature  is  perfectly  homogeneous  with  ours. 
Sprung  from  our  race,  consisting  of  body 
and  soul,  having  the  properties  of  a  crea- 
ture [Kreatiirlich],  capable  of  suffering, 
mortal:  feeling,  thinking,  willing  in  the 
manner  of  men,  but  without  sin.  It  is  true 
that  it  does  not  possess  the  same  original- 
ness  and  independence  [Urspriinglichkeit 
und  Selbstandigkeit]  as  the  divine,  but  it 
has  in  the  latter  the  principle  of  its  exist- 
ence and  subsistence.  And  this  constitutes 
the  truth  of  our  Church's  doctrine  of  the 
for*?**/*.  If  the  case  were  otherwise,  we 
would,  in  the  place  of  a  God-man,  have  a 


144  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

mere  man,  of  whom  we  could  only  affirm 
that  he  is  enlightened  and  animated  by  the 
divine.  The  objection,  however,  that  in 
this  way  the  humanity  is  deprived  of  an 
integrating  element  of  its  being,  particular- 
ly of  personality,  falls  to  the  ground  of  it- 
self, according  to  the  view  which  we  take 
of  the  subject.  For  an  absolute  self-de- 
pendence or  independence  is  not,  at  any 
rate,  an  attribute  of  human  nature,  but  it 
is  in  all  its  members,  and  in  every  respect, 
determined  in  its  condition  by  God,  and  is 
so  far  from  being  impaired  or  infringed 
upon,  by  this  want  of  self-dependence 
[Selbstandigkeit]  that  through  this,  pre- 
cisely, it  is  what  it  is  (dass  sie  gerade  an 
ihr  ihre  Wahrheit  hat.).  Its  peculiarity  is 
dependent  upon  this,  that  it  bears  within 
itself  a  divine  fundamental  element  of  life. 
The  same  is  true  of  the  Redeemer,  of  whose 
life  the  Logos  is  the  fundamental  element. 
The  only  difference  is  this,  that  in  him 
life  is  eternal,  absolute,  self-existent,  and 
identical  with  that  of  the  Father,  *'£W,  o 
Xoyot,  rfa  £,*>%$,  I  John  i.  and  ii.  (<?  ®tot  Aoy«s, 
as  the  ancients  correctly  expressed  it), 

John  V.  26.  f' 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.     145 

whereas  in  us  it  exists  as  life  from  God, 
limited  as  pertaining-  to  creatures  [auf 
Kreatiirlich  beschrankte  Weise],  in  a  finite 
form ;  so  that  therefore,  his  being  and  ours 
are  really  of  a  kindred  nature,  ours  being 
spirit  of  his  spirit,  life  from  the  fulness  of 
his  life.  But  do  we  not  thus  fall  into  the 
error  of  the  ancient  Apollinarism,  which 
denied  that  the  Redeemer  had  any  human 
personality  ?  Not  by  any  means.  For  that 
divine  fundamental  element  of  life  within 
us,  whose  union  with  our  animal  nature  is 
alone  competent  to  produce  human  self- 
consciousness,  and  to  give  it  reality,  to  fit 
us  for  the  knowledge  of  God  and  for  con- 
scious communion  with  him,  arid  to  effect 
these  in  reality,  is  not  itself,  in  fact,  either 
the  one  or  the  other  of  these,  but  the  basis 
upon  which  they  are  developed.  This  fun- 
damental element  of  life  [Lebensgrund] 
does  not,  in  fact,  develop  itself,  but  man's 
thought  and  will  [Das  menschliche  Denken 
und  Wollen]  grow  up,  as  it  were,  into  it, 
and  thus  only  acquire  their  distinct  charac- 
ter and  their  full  import.  In  a  similar  man- 
ner the  divine  Logos  constitutes,  in  the 

Redeemer,  the  basis   of  his  human  con- 
13 


146  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

sciousness,  the  possibility  of  a  humanly- 
thinking  and  willing  me,  without  therefore 
being  this  itself,  or  subsisting  as  a  second 
distinct  consciousness  along  side  of  it ;  for 
he  has,  in  his  incarnation,  humbled,  emptied 
himself,  and  laid  aside  his  divine  conscious- 
ness, in  order  to  resume  it  again  in  the  form 
of  the  human. 

This  humiliation  [or  exinanition]  how- 
ever, which  constitutes  him  a  real  man, 
does  not,  on  the  other  hand,  in  any  sense  in- 
fringe upon  the  reality  of  his  divinity.  For, 
self-limitation  is  nothing  else  than  self-de- 
termination ;  and  when  the  divine  Self  de- 
termines itself  to  exist  in  a  certain  manner, 
or  to  operate  within  a  limit  fixed  by  itself, 
when  it  appoints  for  itself  a  definite  mode 
or  limit,  it  does  not  thereby  cease  to  be  the 
absolute.  The  creation  of  the  -world,  the 
production  of  personal  beings  with  a  free 
self-determination,  together  with  the  possi- 
bility of  the  fall,  and  the  permission  of  evil ; 
nay,  the  entire  government  of  the  world, 
in  its  patience  and  long-suffering  towards 
sinners,  are  all  acts  of  self-limitation ;  for 
here  God  abstains  from  the  manifestation 
of  his  absolute  power,  without  therefore 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.      147 

giving  it  up ;  just  as  when,  on  the  other 
hand,  he  punishes  the  wicked,  and  withdraws 
his  blessing  from  them,  he  does  not  cease 
to  be  Love.  But  this  divine  self-limitation 
and  self-humiliation  [Selbstverleugnung] 
is  preeminently  displayed  in  the  entire 
scheme  of  salvation  revealed  in  the  Gos- 
pel, of  which  the  incarnation  is  the  central 
point.  That  to  which  the  whole  history 
of  man's  salvation  points,  appears  here  in 
its  highest  perfection  [tritt  hier  im  hochsten 
Maase  ein].  The  Son  gives  up  the  fulness 
of  his  attributes,  the  relation  in  which  he 
stands  to  the  world  as  its  Creator  and  Ru- 
ler, the  T<n*  etvati  TV  ©*®  [the  being  equal  to 
God.  Tr.] ;  but  only  actu,  [i.  e.,  so  far  as 
their  active  exercise  is  concerned] ;  he  does 
not  give  up  his  divine  being  or  essence.  In 
laying  aside  his  divine  glory  (2°l*\  he  does 
not  lose  his  oneness  of  being  or  essence 
with  the  Father.  As  to  his  essence  he  re- 
mains God,  whilst  he  divests  himself  of  the 
fuppj  ©en — the  form  of  God. 

If  from  this  we  proceed  to  consider,  in 
the  second  place,  the  mutual  relation  be- 
tween the  divine  and  human  in  Christ,  it 
necessarily  follows  from  the  definitions 


148  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

given  above,  that  we  dare  not  regard  the 
two  as  connected  together  externally,  or 
in  a  manner  merely  ethical  (0i»«0«ia);  for 
in  this  way  the  one  being  Christ  would 
again  become  divided  into  a  duality  of  per- 
sons ;  or  we  would  have  to  come  back  to 
that  mere  indwelling  of  the  divine,  which 
we  have  already  rejected,  as  in  itself  utterly 
incompatible  with  the  idea  of  the  God-man. 
But  an  absorption  of  the  human  nature,  or 
its  transmutation  into  the  divine,  is  just 
as  much  out  of  the  question,  as  he  would 
thus  utterly  cease  to  be  essentially  like 
unto  us.  The  view  which  we  are  giving 
excludes,  of  itself,  both  these  modes  of  re- 
presentation. They  are,  in  like  manner, 
at  variance  with  Scripture,  and  moreover, 
they  rob  the  whole  work  of  redemption  of 
its  significance  and  value.  For  if  the  di- 
vine and  human  natures  in  Christ  are  only 
externally  connected,  all  that  he  did  and 
suffered  can  be  predicated  only  of  his  hu- 
man nature,  and  ceases,  as  merely  human, 
to  have  any  redeeming  value ;  but  if  the 
human  has  been  absorbed  by  and  into  the 
divine  nature,  his  human  activity  loses  all 
its  genuineness,  and  becomes  a  mere  sem- 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.      149 

blance  or  feint,  as  taught  by  the  Docetae. 
In  opposition  to  these  erroneous  conceptions 
(Nestorianism  and  Eutychianism),  the  dis- 
tinctions and  definitions  given  by  our  Church 
are  irnpregnably  true:  "In  Christo  duo 
nature,  divina  et  humana,  in  unitate  per- 
sonae  kwyypTtii  et  ct^afirra^  inconfuse  et  in- 
separabiliter  conjunctae  sunt.  [In  Christ, 
the  two  natures,  the  divine  and  the  human, 
are  united,  in  the  oneness  of  his  person, 
without  confusion,  and  inseparably.]  But 
the  most  weighty  consideration  is  the  one- 
ness, the  unity  ;  for,  ever  since  the  act  of 
the  unio  hypostatica,  it  is  entirely  improper 
to  ascribe  to  him  two  separate  natures,  a 
twofold  consciousness,  a  twofold  will ;  it  is, 
on  the  contrary,  One  undivided  person  of 
of  the  God-man  (una  indivisa  persona),  in 
which  the  divine  and  human  natures  so 
pervade  each  other,  as  that  neither  can  be 
regarded,  or  so  much  as  thought  of,  as 
existing  by  itself,  i.  e.  alongside  or  outside 
of  the  other.  Unio  arctissima,  intima, 
realis.)  And  here  the  declarations  of  our 
Confession  claim  our  unqualified  assent ; 
ad  integritatem  persons  Christi  incarnati 
non  modo  divina  sed  etiam  humana  natura 


150  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

pertinet.  (Form.Conc.viii.il.)  [To  the 
integrity  of  the  person  of  the  incarnate 
Christ  pertains  not  only  the  divine,  but 
also  the  human  nature.] :  again  :  nee  A«y«t 
extra  carnem,  nee  caro  extra  A«y*,  &c. 
[The  Logos  is  not  separate  from  the  flesh, 
nor  the  flesh  from  the  Logos.]  But  every 
abstraction,  which  seeks  to  keep  the  two 
natures  separate,  is  obviously  entirely 
wrong,  because  no  such  separateness  is 
found  in  concrete  :  [in  the  actual  person]. 
Even  the  analogy  of  body  and  soul,  which 
it  is  usual  to  adduce,  is  utterly  useless  for 
illustrating  this  connection.  It  is  too  exter- 
nal. The  well-known  similitude  of  heated 
iron,  which,  'at  all  events,  is  inapplicable  to 
spiritual  things,  is  equally  useless.  Only 
the  relation  of  the  human  Trvev^x  to  soul 
and  body,  or  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  re- 
generated, presents  a  suitable  point  of  com- 
parison. 

II.   The  Communicatio  idiomatum. 

Such  being  the  state  of  the  case  as  re- 
spects the  person  of  the  Redeemer,  it  fol- 
lows that  the  whole  of  his  active  life  can- 
not be  regarded  as  a  double  series  of  acts 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD  S    SUPPER.      151 

transpiring  alongside  of  each  other,  inter- 
locking, like  two  cog-wheels  ;  on  the  con- 
trary, just  as  his  person  is  a  true,  living 
unity,  so  also  are  his  consciousness,  his  in- 
ward life,  and  his  external  activity  to  be 
considered  as  strictly  integral,  and  be- 
longing equally  to  both  constituents  of  his 
being.  For,  (as  we  have  shown  above), 
the  divine  Logos  has  not  reserved  to  him- 
self a  separate  existence,  and  hence  also 
no  separate  mode  of  action,  alongside  of, 
or  exterior  to,  the  human,  but  has,  on  the 
contrary,  condescended  to  enter,  in  this 
respect  also,  entirely  the  form  of  humanity. 
And  with  this  we  have,  at  the  same  time, 
the  possibility  of  a  naturally-human  devel- 
opment on  the  basis  of  the  already  given 
unio  hypostatica,  from  which  that  oneness 
of  life  can  be  more  accurately  explained 
according  to  its  particular  manifestations. 
For  even  as  in  every  human  being  self- 
consciousness  exists  potentially  from  the 
beginning,  but  attains  to  actuality  only  in 
the  way  of  successive  development,  thus 
also  the  Redeemer  had  not  from  the  be- 
ginning a  developed  knowledge  respecting 
his  divino-human  being  (gottmenschliches 


152  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

Wesen).  In  childhood  his  knowledge  and 
consciousness  are  those  of  a  child.  But, 
as  the  consciousness  of  his  innermost  nature 
gradually  unfolds  itself  to  his  view,  the 
consciousness  of  his  divine  Sonship,  of  his 
relation  to  the  Father,  and  of  his  call  to  be 
the  Redeemer  of  the  world,  discloses  itself 
to  him  at  the  same  time ;  in  a  manner 
similar  to  that  in  which,  with  the  progres- 
sive development  of  the  spiritual  elements 
of  our  nature,  the  consciousness  of  the  re- 
lation in  which  we  stand  to  God,  and  of 
our  earthly  destination,  is  disclosed  to  us. 
It  is  a  process,  therefore,  in  which  the  per- 
sonality of  the  God-man  is  realized;  but 
this  process  does  not  first  effect  the  com- 
munion between  the  divine  and  human 
within  him;  this,  on  the  contrary,  being 
given,  it  proceeds  from  that  which  already 
exists,  and  only  carries  it  onward  to  a  state 
of  consciousness.  This  consciousness  it- 
self is  not,  therefore  to  be  partially  regarded 
either  as  human,  or  as  divine,  but  as  inte- 
gral (einheitliches),  i.  e.  as  divino  human.* 

*With  the  Redeemer,  as  with  us,  this  develop- 
ment is  mediately  effected  through  the  influence  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  which  affected  him  through  all  the 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.      153 

What  is  true  of  his  consciousness,  is 
therefore  true  also  of  his  entire  life  and  ac- 
tivity. This  is,  like  the  former,  integral,  di- 
vino-human.  What  he  speaks,  feels,  and 
suffers  in  the  performance  of  his  media- 
torial office  on  earth, — his  sympathy  with 
the  misery  of  the  world,  his  participation 
in  the  poverty  and  weakness  of  our  nature, 
the  conflict  with  temptation,  his  grief  and 
suffering — all  these  purely  human  acts  are 
at  the  same  time  divine,  because  they  pro- 
ceed from  the  one  person  of  the  God-man. 
"Wherefore  ("though  made  so  much  bet- 
divinely-ordered  relations  of  his  early  life,  and  par- 
ticularly through  the  word  of  his  Father :  there  is 
here,  however,  this  essential  difference  that,  whilst 
ours  is  at  all  times  passing  through  sin  and  error, 
his  not  only  remained  free  from  all  pollution,  but 
unfolded  itself  with  a  clearness  and  continuous- 
ness,  by  virtue  of  which  every  moment  of  his  life, 
being  animated  by  humble  obedience  and  holy  love 
to  God,  contained  within  itself  a  living  impulse  to 
farther  progress,  so  that,  with  Schleiermacher,  we 
may  regard  the  unfolding  of  his  personality,  from 
earliest  childhood  to  the  maturity  of  manhood,  as 
an  unbroken  course  of  transition  from  the  purest 
innocence  to  a  perfect  fulness  of  spiritual  strength, 
which  is  widely  different  from  every  thing  that  we 
call  virtue. 


154  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

ter  than  the  angels")  in  all  things  it  behoved 
him  to  be  made  like  unto  his  brethren,  that 
he  might  be  a  merciful  and  faithful  high- 
priest  in  things  pertaining  to  God."  Heb. 
ii.  17. — "Though  he  were  a  Son  [better: 
although  he  was  the  Son],  yet  learned  he 
obedience  by  the  things  which  he  suffered." 
Heb.  v.  8.  And  therefore  also  the  Scrip- 
tures describe  his  whole  work  of  redemp- 
tion at  one  time  as  the  ipyoi  of  the  Son  of 
Man,  at  another  as  the  «Vy«>  °f  the  Son  of 
God.  They  say:  o  xupios  7%$  $O%K  (desig- 
nating his  divine  nature)  is  crucified,  1  Cor. 

ii.  8. — but  also  «  w<o$  ra  »v$pa7rv  fVaj^fV  retpxt. 

Luke  ix.  22,  sqq.  1  Pet.  iv.  1  ;  on  the  one 
hand  they  ascribe  his  sufferings  to  his  hu- 
man nature,  and  on  the  other  they  derive 
its  efficacy  to  atone  for  the  sins  of  the 
whole  world,  from  its  being  the  suffering 
of  the  Son  of  God;  Cf.  1  Pet.  i.  19,  20. 
Matt.  xx.  28.  with  1  John  i.  7.  *W  'I**-* 
Xpirx  rtt  viu  rv  0g».  Acts  xx.  18.  For  this 
very  reason  we  do  not  suffer  ourselves  to 
be  at  alL disturbed  by  the  oft-repeated  ob- 
jection, that  thus  the  divine  nature  in  Christ 
is  degraded  into  that  which  is  human.  On 
the  contrary  we  teach,  as  the  Scriptures 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.     155 

do,  not  only  a  co-knowledge,  but  an  actual 
participation,  a  real  sharing  in  the  same 
feelings  and  sufferings  on  the  part  of  the 
divinity  of  the  Redeemer,  in  respect  of  the 
condition  and  sufferings  of  his  humanity,* 
nay,  we  regard  this  as  a  necessary  conse- 
quence of  the  incarnation,  and  refer  the 
entire  significance  [Bedeutung :  import:] 
of  all  that  he  did  and  suffered,  precisely  to 
this,  that  it  is  di vino-human. t  We  com- 
prehend what  has  been  said  above,  in  this 
aphorism  :  What  the  Redeemer  does  as  man 
he  does  also  as  God. 

*  The  main  force  of  the  above-cited  passages, 
Heb.  v.  8.— iv.  15. — v.  2.  cf.  2  Cor.  v.  19.  with 
Heb.  i.  3.,  rests  entirely  upon  his  suffering  being 
that,  of  the  Son  of  God. 

f  It  is  usual  here  also  to  appeal  to  the  relation 
between  body  and  soul.  It  is  common  to  say  that, 
when  the  body  suffers,  the  soul  suffers  with  it,  but 
in  a  different  manner.  It  would,  however,  be  bet- 
ter to  urge  this  fact,  that  the  soul  can  suffer  (sym-  | 
pathize)  with  the  body,  without  being  violently 
[leidenschaftlich]  affected  by  this  fellow-suffering. 
It  can  preserve,  in  the  midst  of  it,  its  peace  in  God, 
its  serene,  equable  spiritual  life  : — and  thus  also 
the  divinity  suffers  with  humanity,  without  losing 
its  own  eternal  serenity. 


156  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

But  this  truth  directly  includes  within 
itself  this  other,  that  what  he  does  as  God, 
he  does  also  as  man.  For,  as  the  human 
life  of  the  Son  is  actively  manifested  in 
and  with  the  divine,  so  is  his  divine  actively 
manifested  only  in  and  with  his  human  life. 
The  light,  the  truth,  the  power  of  the  Logos 
so  entirely  pervade  and  illumine  the  human 
spirit,  that  no  separation  is  here  possible. 
What  he  thinks  in  his  divine  nature,  he 
thinks  at  the  same  time  in  his  human  na- 
ture, just  as  his  divine  word  is,  in  the  strict- 
est sense,  human.  Those  manifestations  of 
power,  those  acts  which  we  are  wont  to 
ascribe,  preeminently,  to  that  which  is 
divine  in  him  ;  not  only  the  miracles  which 
he  wrought  in  the  days  of  his  flesh,  but  also 
those  far  greater  ones  which  he  continues 
to  work  ;  the  diffusion  of  light  in  the  world 
(John  viii.  12.),  the  victory  over  spiritual 
and  physical  death,  the  restoration  of  life 
John  v.  21,  sqq.  John  xi.  25,  26.),  the  go- 
vernment of  the  Church,  the  communica- 
tion of  spiritual  gifts  and  graces  (Eph.  iv. 
8,  sqq.),  the  bestowing  of  the  bread  of  life 
(John  vi.  51,  sqq.),  the  raising  of  the  dead, 
and  the  final  judgment  (John  v.  27.) — all 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.      157 

these  pertain  also  to  his  humanity,  because 
they  proceed  from  the  one  person  of  the 
God-man.  The  same  being  that  suffers 
and  dies,  enlightens  and  animates  the  world 
— the  same  being  that  works  miracles, 
shares  also  the  poverty  and  the  limited  con- 
dition (Beschranktheit)  of  the  flesh.  So 
far  as  the  Logos  possesses  and  exercises 
the  divine  glory,  to  the  same  extent  he  pos- 
sesses and  exercises  it  also  as  Man. 

During  the  whole  of  his  mediatorial  ac- 
tivity on  earth,  however,  this  possession 
was  limited.  It  is  only  at  the  close  of  his 
earthly  career,  that  it  attains  its  full  mea- 
sure and  completeness ;  the  glory,  which 
the  divine  Logos  had  laid  aside,  is  restored 
to  him  as  the  God-man,  and  thus,  eo  ipso, 
communicated  also  to  his  humanity." 

We  regret  that  want  of  space,  as  it  for- 
bade our  presenting  what  precedes  the  ex- 
tracts above  given,  prevents  our  translating 
the  sections  which  follow,  and  in  which 
the  author  shows  how  consistent,  how  un- 
swervingly faithful  to  Scripture,  the  Church 
has  been  throughout,  in  carrying  out  these 
views  with  reference  to  both  our  Lord's  state 
of  humiliation,  and  his  state  of  exaltation. 
14 


158  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

We  had  designed  in  our  own  manner  and 
language  to  discuss  this  entire  subject  in 
extenso  ;  but,  .finding  that  we  could  not 
possibly  condense  what  we  had  to  say  within 
a  sufficiently  narrow  space,  we  abandoned 
the  attempt.  And,  although  the  extracts 
above  translated  are  only  fragments  of  an 
extensive  treatise,  they  are  sufficiently 
complete  and  satisfactory  to  show  what 
our  Church  believes  in  respect  of  the  great 
theme,  so  strenuously  assailed  in  the  article 
before  us.  To  offer  such  a  statement  seemed 
imperatively  necessary,  as  Dr.  S.  shows  no 
favour  either  to  the  doctrine  of  the  hypo- 
static  union,  or  that  of  the  communicatio 
idiomatum,  as  taught  by  our  Church. — 
What,  without  the  hypostatic  union,  his 
belief  respecting  Christ's  person  and  work 
can  be,  and  what,  according  to  his  views, 
is  to  become  of  the  whole  doctrine  of  the 
atonement,  is  more  than  we  are  able  to 
comprehend.  We  believe  that,  if  the  Scrip- 
tures teach  any  thing  clearly,  definitely  and 
positively,  they  do  thus  teach  the  doctrine 
of  the  hypostatic  union  of  the  Divine  and  hu- 
man natures  in  Christ.  And  we  further  be- 
lieve, that  from  this  doctrine,  in  connexion 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.      159 

with  the  words  of  the  institution,  the  view 
set  forth  in  our  Confessions  respecting  the 
Lord's  Supper  necessarily  follows,  and  is, 
accordingly,  distinctly  taught  in  Scripture. 
"  As  Christ  is  a  divino-hurnan  person,  he  is, 
wherever  he  is,  personally,  entire,  undivi- 
ded, not  merely  as  God,  but  also  as  man : 
and  this  is  especially  true  respecting  the 
manner  of  presence,  in  which,  as  the  ex- 
alted Redeemer,  he  dwells  and  operates  in 
his  Church."  Luther  says:  "Distance 
and  space  do  not  divide  the  nature  in  him, 
which  certainly  neither  death  nor  all  devils 
can  tear  asunder.  Where  you  tell  me  that 
God  is,  there  you  must  also  admit  the  hu- 
manity to  be,  for  they  cannot  be  divided 
or  separated."  To  this  position  he  firmly 
adhered,  without  wavering  ;  and  this  is  the 
more  to  his  credit,  as  he  had  strong  temp- 
tations, which  cost  him  great  inward  con- 
flicts, to  give  up  his  views,  because  he  well 
knew,  that  he  could  thus  most  easily  give 
the  doctrine  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  mass  its 
death-blow.  But  he  was  not  to  be  induced 
to  do  evil,  in  order  that  good  might  come 
thereby.  "I  confess,"  he  writes  A.  D. 
1524,  "that,  if  Carlstadt  or  any  one  else 


160  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

had  been  able  to  prove  to  me,  five  years 
ago,  that  there  was  nothing  more  than 
bread  and  wine  in  the  Sacrament,  he  would 
have  rendered  me  a  great  service.  I  have, 
in  this  matter,  endured  severe  conflicts, 
have  striven,  and  turned  myself  hither  and 
thither,  to  find  my  way  out,  because  I  saw 
clearly,  that  thus  I  would  be  enabled  to 
give  the  papacy  the  hardest  knock ,  but  I 
am  held  captive,  and  cannot  get  out ;  the 
text  is  too  strong,  and  words  do  not  suffice 
to  strip  it  of  its  meaning."  He  would  not 
and  could  not  yield  to  arguments  of  human 
reason,  because  the  power  of  God's  Word, 
in  the  Gospels  and  in  the  1  Ep.  to  the  Co- 
rinthians held  him  bound.  And  when  the 
Swiss  protested  that  it  was  a  contradiction 
to  say,  that  Christ  is  in  heaven  and  at  the 
same  time  in  the  Eucharist,  he  did  not  for 
a  moment  suffer  this  seeming  incongruity 
to  perplex  him,  but  argued  in  reply,  that 
"both  must  be  true,  because  the  Scriptures 
teach  both."  Human  reasonings,  and  ob- 
jections invented  by  the  ingenuity  and 
wisdom  of  man,  could  not  lead  him  astray, 
even  when  plied  with  passages  of  Scripture, 
which  seemed  to  be  contradictory.  "  The 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.     161 

Scriptures,"  he  declared  ''cannot  contra- 
dict themselves ;  and  because,  according  to 
them,  Christ's  body  is  present  in  the  Lord's 
Supper,  it  must  be  possible."  And  here  we 
take,  with  him,  our  stand,  leaving  to  others 
the  foundations  laid  by  human  reason,  if 
they  please  them  better,  and  afford  them, 
safety  and  peace. 

The  author  of  the  article  before  us  now 
proceeds,  in  §  4.,  to  present  what  he  calls, 
"The  second  tropical  Interpretation  (by  Cal- 
vin.}" With  this  we  have  no  concern,  as 
we  are  defending  the  doctrine  of  the  Lu- 
theran Church :  and  although  we  find  here 
sundry  points  that  are  open  to  criticism, 
we  cannot  spare  room,  and  therefore  pass 
on  to  what  is  announced  to  be  "§.  5.,  The 
true,  Historical  and  Pauline  interpretation 
of  the  Words  of  the  Institution"  The  ar- 
rogance, with  which  this  rationalistic  inter- 
pretation is  put  forward  as  alone  true  and 
historical,  and  even  saddled  upon  St.  Paul, 
would  be  ludicrous,  if  it  were  not  so  pre- 
sumptuous. The  great  Apostle  of  the 
Gentiles  would  probably  not  have  been 
very  grateful  for  the  compliment  here  of- 
fered to  him.  But  let  all  this  pass.  There 
14* 


162  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

is,  in  this  exegetical  effort,  a  good  deal  that 
is  irrelevant,  or  again,  mere  arbitrary  as- 
sumption. To  the  general  position  here 
taken,  we  have  already  replied  on  the  pre- 
ceding pages.  We  have  seen,  that  the  ar- 
guments advanced  against  the  correctness 
of  the  interpretation  given  by  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  her  Confessions — against  the 
strictly  scriptural  soundness  of  this  interpre- 
tation, are  feeble  and  untenable.  We  main- 
tain that  the  Lutheran  interpretation  is  the 
only  consistently  literal  one  :  that  the  doc- 
trine of  the  perfect  and  inseparable  union 
of  the  two  natures  in  Christ,  which  consti- 
tutes the  true  basis  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
atonement,  involves  equally  the  doctrine 
which  we  have  been  compelled  to  defend ; 
and  such  being  the  case,  this  "true,  histori- 
cal, and  Pauline  interpretation"  is  neither 
true,  nor  historical,  nor  Pauline.  After  all 
that  has  been  said,  it  would  be  quite  un- 
necessary to  examine  and  criticise  this  exe- 
getical attempt  in  detail.  We  shall  notice 
only  a  few  particulars,  and  then  conclude 
with  a  brief  statement  of  the  Lutheran  view 
of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

The  Doctor  begins  with  the  Passover, 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.      163 

and  insists  that  "it  is  the  Lord's  passing 
over"  is  equivalent  to  "it  signifies  the  angel 
of  the  Lord's  passing  over,"  &c.  We  should 
really  like  to  be  informed  how  the  slain 
and  roasted  lamb  was  to  signify  the  angel : 
Exod.  xii.  says  nothing  of  his  kind.  Refer- 
ring to  Exod.  xii.  26,  27.,  he  says:  "No 
one  imagines  these  words  to  mean  :  '  The 
lamb  that  was  slain  at  the  Passover,  was 
the  passing  over  of  the  Lord's  angel.'  All 
admit  that  "  is"  here  is  equivalent  to  signi- 
fies" There  are  here  several  points  which 
our  author  overlooks.  The  paschal  lamb 
was  slain  as  a  sacrificial  victim,  and  as 
such,  eaten.  It  is  not  the  lamb  itself  which 
is  called  the  Lord's  Passover,  but  (as  ap- 
pears from  Exod.  xii.  26,  27.)  the  sacrificial 
meal  or  feast — the  act  of  partaking  of  the 
flesh  of  the  victim  in  the  manner  appointed, 
— the  entire  service,  or,  if  any  prefer,  the 
sacramental  rite  ;  and  herein  is  a  true  and 
unmistakable  analogy  between  the  type  and 
the  anti-type.  And  moreover,  at  the  very 
time  when  that  lamb  was  eaten,  the  Lord 
was  passing  over,  and  sparing  Israel,  so 
that  the  appointed  rite  exhibited  a  present 
reality. 


164  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

Our  author  again  urges  the  figurative 
nature  of  the  words  of  the  institution.  In 
addition  to  what  has  already  been  said,  we 
here  merely  transcribe  a  few  sentences  from 
his  own  translation  from  Reinhard,  in  the 
first  edition  of  Storr  and  Flatt's  Theol., 
vol.  ii.  p.  330,  sq.,  simply  reminding  the 
reader,  that  in  that  treatise  the  Dr.  calls 
these  views  of  Reinhard  "lucid  and  philo- 
sophical." "The  context,"  (says  Rein- 
hard),  "  affords  us  not  the  least  ground  for 
supposing  them  to  be  figurative,  which 
would  have  to  be  the  case  before  we  should 
be  authorized  to  depart  from  the  natural 
meaning  of  the  words.  In  addition  to 
this,  we  should  make  decided  tautology 
of  Lukexxii.  19.,  by  explaining  figuratively 
the  words  '  this  is  my  body :'  for  their 
meaning  would  then  be  the  same  as  that 
expressed  by  the  succeeding  words,  'do  this 
in  remembrance  of  me.'  But  that  these 
last  words  are  not  an  explanation  of  the 
preceding,  is  evident  from  the  circumstance 
that  they  are  given  as  a  command.  The 
same  remarks  apply  also  to  1  Cor.  xi.  24, 
25."  &c.  Although  Reinhard  is  not  strictly 
Lutheran  in  his  views,  the  reader  may  con- 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.     165 

suit,  with  advantage,  the  pages  which  fol- 
low this  quotation  :  we  have  not  space  for 
more. 

Again,  we  have  another  consideration  to 
urge  in  respect  of  the  words  of  the  institu- 
tion, philologically  regarded  as  to  their 
grammatical  force  and  arrangement.  The 
opponents  of  our  doctrine  maintain  that  the 
word  "is"  does  not  here  really  denote 
being,  but  that  it  means  the  same  as  "  signi- 
fies," and  that  therefore  it  is  not  here  em- 
ployed in  its  proper  sense.  Nowr  in  view 
and  denial  of  this  assertion,  we  insist  upon 
the  well-known  principle  or  axiom,  long 
since  established  in  accordance  with  the 
laws  of  thought  and  of  language,  that  the 
copula,  "  is",  never,  in  any  sentence,  admits 
of  a  trope  or  figurative  mode  of  speech :  i.  e. 
can  never  itself  be  the  vehicle  of  a  trope  or 
figure.  For  in  every  complete  sentence  in 
which  the  predicate  is  distinctly  expressed, 
the  copula  "is"  is  always  merely  an  adjunct 
or  accessory  of  the  predicate,  and  never 
independently  predicating.  Hence  the  fig- 
urative signification  can  never  be  carried 
or  conveyed  by  this  word  alone  :  but  it 
must,  if  really  intended,  lie  either  in  the 


166  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

subject  or  in  the  predicate,  while  the  verb 
or  copula  is,  in  reality,  in  no  way  con- 
cerned or  connected  with  the  intended  fig- 
ure of  speech.  Now  let  this  axiom,  the  cor- 
rectness of  which  cannot  be  questioned,  be 
applied  to  the  words  of  the  institution  of  the 
Holy  Eucharist,  and  also  to  othet  passages 
which  Zwingle,  who  has,  in  this,  found  a 
host  of  imitators,  was  wont  to  cite  in  favour 
of  his  view. — If  the  words  of  the  institution 
really  presented  a  figurative  use  of  any 
word,  this  wrould  have  to  be  contained 
either  in  the  predicate  or  in  the  subject. 
The  predicate  in  the  body  and  the  blood 
of  Christ ;  but  of  these  words  there  cannot 
here  be  any  unreal  use,  because,  if  this 
were  the  case,  it  would  follow  that  an  un- 
real body  had  been  crucified,  and  unreal 
blood  shed  for  us  ;  and,  if  this  were  true, 
then  would  also  the  entire  salvation  of  man 
be  something  figurative — something  unreal. 
Nor  is  a  figurative  use  of  the  word  any 
more  admissible  in  respect  of  the  sub- 
ject. This  is,  in  the  one  case,  the  bread, 
in  the  other,  the  wine,  respecting  which 
no  argument  is  necessary  to  prove  that 
they  are  not  to  be  taken  figuratively  or 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.      167 

unreally.  There  cannot,  therefore,  in  the 
words  of  the  institution,  be  an  unreal, 
unliteral,  figurative  use  of  a  word,  as  it  lies 
neither  in  the  predicate,  nor  in  the  subject, 
nor  in  the  copula,  "is." — But  Zwingle  and 
his  followers  and  imitators  have  cited  other 
passages,  in  which,  as  they  conceive,  the 
verb  "to  be"  is  employed  in  the  sense  of 
"to  signify."  By  applying  the  principle 
or  axiom  above  cited  to  these  passages, 
their  correct  interpretation  is  secured.  For 
although  there  obviously  is,  in  all  these 
passages,  a  trope  or  figure  of  speech,  this 
does  not  lie,  is  not  contained,  in  the  copula 
"to  be,"  but  either  in  the  subject  or  the 
predicate.  Thus,  when  it  is  said  1  Cor.  x. 
4.  "that  rock  was  Christ,"  the  subject, 
"  the  rock,"  is  to  be  taken  unreally,  figura- 
tively ;  for  here  no  material,  earthy  rock 
is  intended,  but  that  "  spiritual  rock,"  which 
followed  the  Israelites  in  the  desert,  and  this 
rock  the  Lord  Jesus  did  not  signify,  but  he 
was  that  rock  indeed  and  in  truth.  In  the 
same  manner  are  to  be  understood  the  pas- 
sages :  Matt.  xiii.  38,  sqq.  and  Rev.  i.  20. 
— But  in  the  words  found  in  Matt.  xi.  14., 
a  figurative  predicate  is  undoubtedly  em- 


168   SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

ployed.  "And  ***  this  is  Elias  :" — this 
does  not  mean  that  John  the  Baptist  was 
really,  actually,  Elias,  but  that  "Elias, 
which  was  for  to  come."  In  like  manner 
explain  John  xv.  1.,  where  we  again  find  a 
figurative  use  of  the  predicate: — "I  am 
the  true  vine  :"  or  xv.  5.  I  am  the  vine." 
These  words  do  not  mean :  I  signify  a 
real,  earthly  vine  ;  but  I  am  in  truth  that 
spiritual  vine,  from  which  floweth  eternal 
life  into  all  that  believe.  Similar  passages 
in  the  gospels,  containing  similar  declara- 
tions of  the  Saviour,  are  to  be  explained  in 
the  same  way.  And  thus  also,  in  the  words 
Gal.  iv.  25.,  "For  this  Agar  is  Mount  Si- 
nai," the  predicate  is  used  in  an  unreal, 
tropical  sense ;  for  St.  Paul  intends  here 
to  say,  that  what  occurred  on  Mount  Sinai 
is  also  to  be  affirmed  of  Agar  and  her  son. 
For  even  as,  on  that  mountain,  the  law 
was  given,  which  pronounces  the  condem- 
nation of  the  sinner  and  his  expulsion  from 
the  presence  of  God,  but  comprises,  at  the 
same  time,  the  promise  and  the  future  re- 
demption, so  the  same  thing  happened  to 
Agar,  for  she  also  was  expelled  from  the 


dwelling  of  her  child's  father,  and  received 
the  promise  respecting  her  son. — 

And  thus  it  is  obvious  and  certain,  that 
the  verb  "to  be"  is  no  where  to  be  explained 
as  meaning  "  to  signify ;"  and  least  of  all 
is  this  interpretation  admissible  in  the  words 
of  the  institution  of  the  Holy  Eucharist. 
This  is  alone  sufficient  to  show  that  the 
words  of  the  institution  must  be  taken  in 
their  appropriate,  literal  sense,  the  words 
themselves  admitting  of  no  other.  But,  in 
addition  to  other  arguments  already  ad- 
vanced, still  other  reasons  remain  to  be 
mentioned,  which  confirm  and  establish  the 
correctness  of  this  interpretation.  And 
here  we  maintain,  further,  that  if  the  entire 
structure  of  Christian  doctrine  is  not  be  a 
tottering  edifice,  perpetually  threatening  to 
fall,  a  mass  of  ruins,  to  the  ground,  we 
must  strictly  adhere  to  the  principle  or 
axiom,  that  those  words  of  the  Sacred  Scrip- 
turesj  in  ivhich,  as  in  its  own  seat  and  strong- 
hold^ any  article  of  faith  is  fully  expressed 
and  completely  contained,  are  not  to  be  un- 
derstood in  any  other  than  their  literal  sense. 
And  here  we  translate  from  Chemnitz  (Loci 

theologici,  p.  169)  the  following  very  satis- 
15 


170  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

factory  and  conclusive  train  of  reasoning. 
"We  know,  indeed,  that  in  the  Sacred 
Scriptures  there  are  some  difficult  and  ob- 
scure passages,  in  the  interpretation  of 
which  we  are  free  to  depart  from  the  words, 
provided  only  we  derive  from  them  a  mean- 
ing or  sense  that  harmonizes  with  other 
passages  of  Scripture*  But  the  case  is  to- 
tally different  in  respect  of  those  passages 
of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  in  which  an  article 
of  faith  is  conveyed,  revealed  and  estab- 
lished, as  in  its  real  and  appropriate  seat 
For  if,  in  the  case  of  these  passages,  we 
deviate  from  the  words,  forsaking  that  sense 
which  the  words,  in  their  simple,  natural 
and  ordinary  signification,  yield  and  ex- 
press, and  resting  satisfied  with  some  other 
sense  which,  in  one  way  or  another,  harmo- 
nizes with  other  passages  of  Scripture,  no 
article  of  faith  can  remain  fixed  or  certain. 
But  it  is  a  point  not  open  to  controversy, 
that  the  words  of  the  institution  are  the 
true  and  proper  seat,  in  which  the  doctrine 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  conveyed,  revealed 
and  established.  And  when  St.  Paul  re- 
peats to  the  Corinthians  these  same  words, 
he  gives  them,  as  it  were,  as  a  canon  and 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD*S    SUPPER.      171 

rule,  according  to  which  all  questions  and 
controversies  respecting  this  doctrine  are  to 
be  decided.  And  we  very  wrell  know  that, 
in  the  Sacred  Scriptures  many  things  are 
said  figuratively,  which  must  be  taken  in 
an  unreal  sense,  differing  from  the  ordinary 
meaning  of  the  words,  and  must  be  thus  in- 
terpreted and  understood.  Yet  it  was  not 
the  will  of  God  that  a  distinction  of  this 
kind  should  be  made  according  to  any  pri- 
vate interpretation,  but,  to  the  end  that  it 
might  be  justly  and  correctly  done,  he 
caused  one  and  the  same  doctrine  to  be  re- 
peated in  divers  places  of  Sacred  Scripture, 
so  that,  in  consequence  of  the  necessary 
copiousness  of  truth  to  be  believed,  the 
Holy  Spirit  himself  either  confirmed  and 
explained,  by  these  same  repetitions,  the 
literal  meaning,  or  showed  that  the  words 
were  not  to  be  taken  in  their  proper  sense, 
but  to  be  understood  in  a  sense  different 
from  that  which  they  literally  express. 
But  now  our  opponents  cannot  even  deny, 
that  the  words  of  the  institution  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  when  taken  in  their  simple, 
appropriate,  natural  signification  in  which 
they  are  ordinarily  employed  in  the  sacred 


172  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

Word,  yield  the  sense,  that  that  which  is 
present,  distributed,  and  orally  received  by 
the  communicant,  in  the  Sacred  Supper, 
which  is  celebrated  on  earth  according  to 
the  institution,  is  not  only  bread  and  wine, 
but  at  the  same  time  also  the  body  and 

blood    of    Christ. And  though   the 

words  of  the  institution  are  repeated  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures  at  four  different  places, 
and  the  doctrine  is  also  expressly  repeated 
in  several  other  passages  ;  yet  it  is  nowhere 
shown,  by  a  direct  and  definite  argument, 
that  the  simple,  appropriate  and  ordinary 
sense  of  the  words  is  to  be  departed  from  ; 
but  the  meaning,  which  the  literal  interpre- 
tation of  the  words  affords,  is,  on  the  other 
hand,  fixed  and  confirmed  in  these  repeti- 
tions."* 

Again,  see  our  author's  article,  p.  55,  sqq. 
The  entire  argument  against  the  Lutheran 
interpretation,  here  derived  from  the  break- 

*  This  argument,  and  the  preceding  based  upon 
the  impossibility  of  the  copula  "is"  serving  as  the 
vehicle  of  a  trope,  are  substantially  derived  from 
an  admirable  little  work  by  Doct.  Emil  Francke, 
entitled:  "Die  Lehre  vom  heiligen  Abendmahl.'' 
Leipzig,  1843. 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.      173 

ing  of  the  bread,  is  impertinent  and  entirely 
gratuitous.  That  Christ's  body  should  be 
broken,  was  determined  from  the  foundation 
of  the  world  :  when  the  Holy  Supper  was 
instituted,  it  was  on  the  eve  of  being  broken : 
if  it  had  not  been  broken,  the  world  would 
not  have  been  saved :  and,  though  the 
breaking  of  the  bread  signify,  or  symboli- 
cally represent  the  breaking  of  the  Saviour's 
body,  this  cannot  prove  that  the  Sacrament 
is  not,  what  the  Saviour  and  St.  Paul  say 
it  is  ;  and  as  the  Saviour  declares,  that  this 
Sacrament  is  his  body  and  blood,  that  in  it 
communicants  receive  his  body  and  blood, 
we  must  look  upon  all  such  interpretations 
as  that  before  us,  as  arbitrary  misinterpre- 
tations, and  hold  with  Luther  that  in  the 
Eucharist  "the  real,  substantial,  or  natural 
body  and  the  real  blood  of  Christ  are  pre- 
sent ;  and  that  the  same  body  which  once 
was  broken  for  us,  the  same  blood  which 
once  was  shed  for  our  sins,  and  which  now 
are  glorified ;  not  in  the  same  form  or  mode, 
but  in  the  same  essence  and  nature." 

Again  :  p.  56.,  2.    This  whole  argument, 
designed  to  show  that  commemoration  is 
the  sole  design  of  the   Lord's  Supper,  is 
15* 


174  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

mere  speculation,  and  not  less  absurd  than 
if  we  were  to  argue  that,  because  flame  is 
designed  to  give  light,  therefore  it  cannot 
be  intended  to  be  hot,  and  to  communicate 
heat.  And  as  we  have  shown,  that  the  li- 
teral interpretation  given  by  the  Lutheran 
Church  is  alone  correct,  just  and  consistent, 
we  cannot  see  how  any  further  onus  pro- 
ban  di  can  rest  upon  us,  as  regards  the  re- 
ception of  the  Saviour's  body  and  blood  by 
communicants.  Our  author  here  loses  sight 
entirely  of  the  fact,  that  the  Sacrament  is, 
according  to  the  words  of  the  institution, 
and  the  strong  language  of  St.  Paul,  to  be 
viewed  under  two  aspects,  objectively  and 
subjectively.  The  objective  character  of 
the  Eucharist  depends,  in  no  wise,  upon 
our  viewing  it  aright,  or  'duly  remembering 
the  sacrifice  for  our  sins ;  but  the  subjective 
benefit,  the  unspeakable  blessing  which  we 
are  to  derive  from  partaking  of  the  elements, 
depends  upon  our  subjective  position,  as 
worthy  or  unworthy  communicants ;  as 
duly  discerning  the  Lord's  body  or  not ;  as 
suitably  remembering,  or  indifferently  dis- 
regarding, what  he  suffered,  how  he  died 
for  our  sins,  all  which  is  sufficiently  obvious 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.     175 

from  St.  Paul's  language,  1  Cor.  xi.  29. ; 
although  our  critic,  for  the  sake  of  sup- 
porting his  argument,  presumes  to  intimate, 
on  p.  59.,  that  communion  and  recollection 
are  synonymous  terms.  How  it  it  possible 
to  place  any  reliance  upon  exegetical  prin- 
ciples that  admit  of  such  interpretations  of 
language  ?  A  similar  instance  of  exegetical 
license  we  find  on  p.  58.,  in  these  words : 
"The  Lord  Jesus,  the  same  night  in  which 
lie  was  betrayed,  took  bread,  and  when  he 
had  given  thanks,  he  brake  it  and  said, 
Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body  which  is  (or  is 
to  be)  broken  for  you."  What  are  we  to 
think  of  such  interpolations  ?  And  again, 
p.  61.,  he  cites  a  number  of  Scripture-pas- 
sages to  show  that  his  interpretation  of 
"  is,"  as  meaning  "  signifies,"  is  correct : 
and  according  to  this  principle  of  interpre- 
tation we  must,  of  course,  read  :  The  Lord 
signifies  my  rock  and  my  fortress — signifies 
my  buckler — signifies  the  horn  of  my  sal- 
vation— signifies  my  high  tower.  The  Lord 
signifies  my  shepherd,  &c.  &c.  If  these 
readings,  substituted  for  the  "is,"  which,  in 
every  instance  cited,  denotes  a  great  and 
blessed  reality,  can  afford  our  author  any 


176  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

comfort  and  edification,  even  so  let  him 
read  for  his  own  special  benefit. 

There  is  but  one  point  more,  belonging 
to  this  "Pauline  Interpretation,"  for  which 
we  can  make  room :  it  is  the  3d,  at  the 
bottom  of  p.  58,  sq.  There  is  here  a  great 
glorifying  over  the  words;  "For,  as  often 
as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup  T«» 

3#vaT«v  T«  Kt^/S.xaTa^y/AAere,  ye  do  show  the 

Lord's  death  till  he  come."  Our  author 
evidently  imagines  that  this  passage,  or 
rather  his  exposition  of  it,  must  put  an  end 
to  all  further  discussion,  by  hermetically 
sealing  the  mouth  of  every  confessional 
Lutheran.  Among  other  things  he  says : 
"This  declaration  of  the  apostle  is  of  in- 
calculable value.  The  greater  portion  of 
the  language  of  Christ  is  or  may  be  figura- 
tive, and  therefore  admits  of  a  diversity  of 
interpretations,  and  it  may  remain  ques- 
tionable which  is  their  true  sense.  But 
this  language  of  Paul  is  literal,  nothing 
figurative  about  it,  and  therefore  in  its  im- 
port all  agree.  All  admit  that  he  designs 
to  say,  as  often  as  ye  celebrate  this  Holy 
Supper,  ye  commemorate,  perpetuate  the 
memory  of,  revive  the  recollection  of  the 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.      177 

death  of  Jesus  on  the  cross."  Now  this 
is  truly  a  most  amazing  affair.  The  im- 
pression made  upon  us  by  this  paragraph 
is,  that  the  Doctor's  principles  of  inter- 
pretation are  rather  unsettled,  or  that  he 
is  unfortunate  in  applying  them.  For 
it  so  happens,  that  it  is  precisely  in  this 
aspect,  which  these  words  of  the  apostle 
exhibit,  that  the  Eucharist  is  symbolical : 
it  is  here  that  the  apostle's  language  is 
figurative.  Does  Dr.  S.  mean  that,  by 
eating  bread  and  drinking  wine,  we  lit- 
erally show  the  Lord's  death?  If  not, 
then  he  means  nothing.  In  our  humble 
opinion  this  could  be  literally  done,  only  if 
we  had  him  bodily  under  our  hands,  and 
could  nail  him  bodily  to  the  cross  :  or,  to 
say  the  least,  if  we  could  exhibit  to  men 
his  lacerated,  bloody,  lifeless  body,  sub- 
stantially, just  as  it  was  taken  from  the 
cross.  But  we  shall  be  told  that  x«T«yy/*a» 
signifies  to  announce,  to  publish,  as  well  as 
to  show  forth.  Very  well.  We  put  it  to 
the  common  sense  of  all  men  to  decide, 
whether  eating  bread  and  drinking  wine  is 
the  customary  method,  or  (except  when 
known  to  be  specially  appointed  for  this 


178  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

end)  any  intelligible  method  at  all,  of  an- 
nouncing or  publishing  to  men  that  any  one 
has  died,  and  died  a  cruel  and  painful  death. 
Of  course  we  do  not  for  a  moment  question 
the  importance  and  significance  of  this  act, 
the  admirable  adaptedness  of  the  rite  to 
show  forth  the  Lord's  death,  and  the  man- 
ner of  it,  among  those  who  are  instructed  in 
gospel-truth :  but  does  it  tell  any  thing  to 
those  who  are  not  thus  instructed  ?  It  is 
precisely  in  this  respect,  and  not  as  the 
communion  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the 
Lord,  that  this  rite  is  symbolical,  and  the 
language  employed  to  describe  it,  figurative, 
requiring  to  be  fully  explained  to  those  who 
are  not  already  acquainted  with  the  gospel- 
history  and  scheme.  Even  Dr.  S.  enters 
into  an  explanatory  paraphrase,  in  the  last 
sentence  above  quoted,  in  which  the  an- 
nouncing, publishing,  and  showing  forth 
are  overlooked,  and  the  whole  significance 
of  the  celebration  is  referred  to  the  com- 
municants themselves. 

The  remaining  matter  here  presented, 
and  coming  under  the  same  category,  has 
already  been  sufficiently  discussed  on  for- 
mer pages.  As  respects  the  precious  spe- 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD*S    SUPPER.      179 

cimen  of  exegesis  commencing  near  the 
bottom  of  p.  62.,  we  may  safely  let  that 
stand  to  speak  against  itself:  it  needs  no 
comment ;  but  if  this  mode  of  amplifying 
and  paraphrasing  Scripture  is  to  come  ex- 
tensively into  vogue,  and  to  be  employed 
for  the  purpose  of  construing  out  of  the 
Scriptures  such  doctrines  as  human  rea- 
son or  prejudice  is  disposed  to  cavil  at,  the 
sooner  we  burn  our  Bibles  the  better. 

In  the  view  which  our  author  presents 
in  conclusion,  of  what  he  actually  finds  in 
the  Holy  Supper,  we  notice  in  a  very  few 
words,  only  two  points.  Firstly :  A  spir- 
itual presence  of  the  Saviour  as  to  his  hu- 
man nature,  is  nonsense  :  and  the  additional 
word  symbolic  plainly  denotes  that  the  au- 
thor really  meant  no  presence  at  all,  so 
that  he  can  safely  omit  this  article,  if  ever 
he  publishes  a  second  edition  of  his  confes- 
sion concerning  the  Eucharist. — Secondly: 
His  "influential  presence"  is  condemned 
by  the  objection  which  he  himself,  and  that 
unjustly,  makes  on  p.  50-6.,  to  the  Lu- 
theran view. — This  influential  presence 
amounts  to  nothing  more  than  the  influence 
of  the  ordinary  means  of  grace,  and  has 


180  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

therefore  again  nothing  particular  to  do 
with  the  Lord's  Supper.  This  mere  prae- 
sentia  operativa,  borrowed  from  Reinhard 
and  Storr,  has  the  entire  letter  and  spirit 
of  the  words  of  the  institution,  of  John  vi. 
and  of  1  Cor.  xi.  against  it.  Whatever 
name,  style  or  title  may  be  given  to  the 
summary  view  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  here 
alleged  to  be  the  most  scriptural,  nothing 
can  be  more  certain  than  this,  that  the 
Lutheran  Church  can  have  nothing  to  do 
with  it. 

That  the  Lutheran  view  of  this  Holy 
Supper  involves  a  great  and  profound  mys- 
tery, we  not  only  admit,  but  we  contend 
that  without  this  there  is  no  Sacrament. 
If  the  opponents  of  our  scriptural  view  call 
upon  us  to  explain  this  mystery,  (and  the 
idle  demand  is  often  made),  we  promise  to 
make  the  attempt  as  soon  as  they  have 
succeeded  in  explaining  the  smallest  mys- 
tery in  the  natural  world  around  them,  e. 
g.  of  the  development  and  growth  of  a  blade 
of  grass.  The  revelations  of  God,  in  na- 
ture and  in  his  Word,  are  full  of  mysteries 
which  no  finite  intellect  can  explain  or 
fathom.  The  scheme  of  redemption  has 


181 


vast  and  glorious  mysteries  in  its  wonder- 
ful doctrines,  at  which  human  reason  is  not 
to  stumble,  because  it  cannot  guage  and 
explain  them,  but  which  the  soul  is  simply 
to  believe,  that  it  may  be  saved.  Among 
these  glorious  mysteries  is  the  doctrine 
concerning  the  presence  of  our  Lord's  glo- 
rified humanity  in  the  Eucharist,  which  we 
believe  simply  because  the  Scriptures  teach 
it.  That  theologians  should  have  employed 
the  doctrines  of  the  hypostatic  union  and 
the  communicatio  idiomatum,  as  clearly 
revealed  in  God's  Word,  to  prove  that  the 
Church  has  correctly  understood  the  Sa- 
viour and  his  apostles,  was  merely  dis- 
charging a  duty  laid  upon  them  by  the 
efforts  of  opponents;  but  with  this  the 
mystery  is  not  intended  to  be  explained. 
We  shall  therefore,  in  conclusion,  merely 
state,  what  the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar  is 
to  us,  and,  in  so  doing,  we  shall  employ, 
not  our  own  words,  but  the  language  of 
eminent  and  celebrated  divines  of  our 
Church. — We  give,  in  the  first  instance, 
from  Johann  Gerhard's  great  work,  Tom. 
v.,  p.  55,  sq.,  the  following  clear  and  suc- 
cinct statement.  "  This  presence  is  not  an 
16 


182  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

essential  transmutation  of  the  bread  into 
the  body,  and  of  the  wine  into  the  blood  of 
Christ,  which  they  call  transubstantiation  ; 
nor  is  it  a  local  and  .permanent  junction 
[or  union]  separate  from  the  sacramental 
use,  of  the  body  with  the  bread  and  of  the 
blood  with  the  wine  [See  Augsb.  Conf.  de 
Abus.  L,  Form.  Cone.  pp.  749,  750,  756], 
nor  is  it  a  personal  union  of  the  bread  and 
the  body  of  Christ,  such  as  is  the  union  of 
the  divine  and  the  human  nature  in  Christ ; 
nor  is  it  a  local  shutting  up  of  the  body  in 
the  bread;  nor  is  it  impanation,  nor  an  in- 
corporation into  the  bread ;  nor  is  it  con- 
substantiation,  whereby  the  bread  coalesces 
with  the  body  of  Christ,  and  the  wine  with 
the  blood  into  one  physical  mass  ;  nor  is  it 
a  natural  existence  of  the  body  and  blood 
in  the  bread  and  wine,  nor  a  concealment 
of  the  body,  in  a  diminutive  form,  under 
the  bread,  nor  any  such  carnal  and  physical 
thing ;  but  it  is  a  sacramental  presence  and 
union,  which  is  of  such  a  nature,  that  with 
the  bread,  consecrated  according  to  the  in- 
stitution of  the  Saviour,  the  body  of  Christ 
is,  as  by  a  means  divinely  ordained,  united 
and  with  the  consecrated  wine,  as  by  a 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.      183 

means  divinely  ordained,  the  blood  of  Christ 
is  united,  in  both  instances  in  a  manner  to 
us  incomprehensible,  so  that  together  with 
that  bread  we  receive  and  eat,  by  a  sacra- 
mental manducation  [eating]  only,  the  body 
of  Christ,  and  together  with  that  wine  we 
receive  and  drink,  by  a  sacramental  drink- 
ing only,  the  blood  of  Christ.  In  short, 
we  hold  that  in  the  Sacred  Supper  there  is, 
riot  «»•»«*,  absence,  nor  iwvW*,  existence 
within,  nor  trvvttna,  consubstantiation,  nor 
ftsrwTiet,  transubstantiation,  but  *-«/»W*, 
presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ."* 

*  "  Hsec  praesentia  non  est  essentialis  conversio 
panis  in  corpus  et  vini  in  Sanguinem  Christi,  quam 
transsubstantiationem  vocant,  neque  est  corporis 
ad  panem  ac  sanguinis  ad  vinum  extra  usum  ccensB 
localis  et  durabilis  affixio,  neque  est  panis  et  corpo- 
ris Christi  personalis  unio,  qualis  est  divinas  et  1m- 
tnanae  naturae  in  Christo  unio ;  neque  est  localis 
mclusio  corporis  in  panem,  neque  est  impanatio, 
neque  incorporatio  in  panem,  neque  est  consubstan- 
tiatio,  qua  panis  cum  corpore  Christi  et  vinum 
cum  sanguine  in  unam  massam  physicam  coales- 
cat ;  neque  est  naturalis  inexistentia,  neque  deli- 
tescentia  corpusculi  sub  pane,  neque  quicquam 
hujusmodi  carnale  aut  physicum,  sed  est  praesen- 
tia et  unio  sacramentalis,  quae  ita  comparata  est, 
ut  juxta  Salvatoris — institutionem  pani  benedicto 


184  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

To  this  statement,  by  which  every  pos- 
sible misconception  is  as  carefully  and  ef- 
fectually guarded  against  as  language  will 
admit,  we  subjoin  the  following  brief  ex- 
hibition from  Quenstedt,  iv.  p.  194.  "A 
presence  superphysical,  illocal,  not  subject 
to  any  inclusion,  extension  or  expansion."* 
It  will  be  perceived,  at  once,  that  here  no 
attempt  is  made  to  explain  the  great  and 
sacred  mystery  of  the  Eucharist :  all  that 
is  aimed  at,  is,  to  state  distinctly  and  accu- 
rately what  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  is 
not,  and  what  it  really  is. — Having  thus 
quoted  two  of  our  earlier  Fathers,  we  shall 
now  conclude  with  the  following  citation 

tanquam  medio  divinitus  ordinato  corpus  et  vino 
benedicto  tanquam  medio  divinitus  ordinato  san- 
guis  Christ!  modo  nobis  incomprehcnsibiii  uni;i- 
tur,  ut  cum  illo  pane  corpus  Christi  una  inandu- 
catione  sacramentali,  et  cum  illo  vino  sanguincm 
Christi  una  bibitione  sacramentali  sumamus,  mari- 
ducemus,  et  bibamus.  Breviter  non  a™veriav,  abscn- 
tiam,  non  ivovsiai,,  inexistentiam,  non  cwovaiav.  con- 
substantiationem,  non  nerov.iav,  transsubstantiatio- 
nem,  sod  *ap-.v<r(a»  (praesentiam)  corporis  et  sangui- 
nis  Christi  in  sacra  coena  statuimus. 

*  "  PraBsentia  hyperphysica,  illocalis,  omnisque 
inclusionis,  extensioriis,  et  expansionis  expers." — 


DOCTRINE    OF    THE    LORD'S    SUPPER.      185 

from  the  recent  work  of  Sartorius,  "Lehre 
von  Christ!  Person  und  Werk." — "The 
Saviour  could  indeed  have  been  always  and 
every  where  spiritually  present  with  his 
disciples,  in  his  divine  nature  ;  hut  this  ge- 
neral, invisible,  incomprehensible  presence 
could  riot  at  all  indemnify  them  for  his 
peculiar,  definitely  circumscribed,  human 
presence.  Moreover,  it  was  not  only  as 
God  that  he  desired  to  be  present  with 
them,  but  he  also  desired  constantly  to  com- 
municate himself  to  them  as  the  God-man 
or  Mediator,  to  give  himself  to  them  as 
their  own,  and  to  receive  them  into  com- 
munion with  himself.  This  could  not  be 
effected  through  that  divine  omnipresence. 
And  therefore  he  appointed  or  established, 
in  the  Sacred  Supper,  a  special  cli vino-hu- 
man presence  of  himself  in  his  Church, 
when  he  says,  in  the  most  explicit  words, 
respecting  the  bread  of  the  altar :  "  this  is 
my  body ;"  and  respecting  the  wine  :  "  this 
is  my  blood."  By  these  same  words  he 
connects  his  invisible,  incomprehensible, 
gracious  presence,  with  the  visible,  com- 
prehensible elements  of  the  bread  and  the 
wine  ;  so  that,  at  the  Sacrament,  we  are 


186  SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LUTHERAN 

not  to  seek  it  in  heaven  or  any  where  else, 
but  precisely  there  where  he  has  himself 
fixed  it,  i.  e.  in  the  elements  of  the  Sacra- 
ment, in  the  bread  and  wine.  Here  then 
Christ  is  present  for  us;  not,  however, 
merely  externally,  but  he  gives  himself  to 
us  to  be  our  own,  our  highest  good,  and 
communicates  himself  unto  us,  inwardly, 
as  our  Saviour,  through  the  participation 
of  the  elements.  Not  as  though  a  trans- 
mutation of  the  bread  and  wine  into  his 
body  and  blood  took  place,  as  the  Romish 
Church  teaches ;  by  no  means  :  as  in  the 
incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  human  na- 
ture was  not  transmuted  into  Deity,  no 
more  are  bread  and  wine  converted  into 
the  substance  of  Christ ;  but,  as  there,  so 
here,  there  is  only  an  intimate  union,  which 
is  indeed  supersensuous,  but  yet  real  and 
substantial,  according  to  the  promise  of 
Christ" 

And  on  this  promise  we  intend,  to  abide, 
for  it  abideth,  and  standeth  firm  and  sure 
for  ever. 


HENRY    LUDWIG, 

p  r  i  n  t  $  r    an^    $ttllt*frt** 

-ZV0.  4C,   Vesey-street, 

NE   W-YORK, 

Respectfully  informs  the  Lutheran  community  and  the 
public  generally,  that  he  has  published  the  following 
works,  and  will  constantly  keep  an  assortment  on 
hand,  wholesale  and  retail. 

THE  LIFE  OF  MARTIN  LUTHER  :  Related 
from  Original  Authorities.  With  sixteen  en- 
gravings. By  MORITZ  MEURER.  Translated 
from  the  German  by  a  Pastor  of  the  Evangelical 
Lutneran  Church.  A  handsome  8vo.  volume, 
bound  in  cloth,  700  pages,  fine  paper.  Price  $2. 

"  There  is  a  homely  directness  about  this  unvarnished  narra- 
tive, that  pleases  us  mightily.  Indeed,  the  want  of  a  purely  ob- 
jective history  of  Luther  has,  thus  far,  been  severely  felt.  In 
most,  if  not  all,  of  the  works  which  furnish  an  account  of  Luther, 
the  subjectivity  of  the  authors  is  found  to  influence  the  charac- 
ter of  their  works  in  such  a  way  as  to  render  them  more  or  less 
partial,  in  some  cases  even  chargeable  with  direct  falsification. 
The  work  here  offered  to  the  public  is  purely  objective  in  its 
character,  and  the  historical  authorities  are  permitted  to  speak 
for  themselves,  without  any  wresting  or  distortion  of  their  state- 
men  t«  by  the  author.  The  only  additions  by  the  author,  if  they 
may  be  so  called,  may  be  compared  to  the  string  upon  which  the 
pearls  are  strung,  or  to  the  mortar  which  binds  the  building- 
sto.ies  of  a  house.  The  reader,  therefore,  has  Luther  as  he  ac- 
tually presented  himself,  and  as  he  appeared  to  those  who  sur- 
rounded him :  no  ideal,  and  no  caricature  ;  and  he  is  thus  en- 
abled to  form  an  unbiassed  judgment.  It  is  evident,  that  this 
History  of  Luther  stands  diametrically  in  opposition  to  those 
histories  which  represent  him  'in  the  light  of  our  times,'  or 
dress  him  in  this  or  that  garment,  according  to  the  peculiar  plan 
that  may.  perchance,  be  followed ;  or,  to  suit  the  views  and 
notions  of  this  or  that  sect.  In  some  biographies  of  Luther,  the 
whole  history  of  the  Reformation  is  embodied  ;  but  in  this,  the 
compiler  has  strictly  kept  in  view  that  he  only  intended  to  write 


2 


A  Life  of  Luther ;  ha  has,  therefore,  only  so  far  touched  upon  the 
scenes  of  the  Reformation  as  Luther  was  therein  a  participator. 
He  has  also  carefully  gleaned  Luther's  Works,  and  whatever 
was  deemed  worthy  of  notice  has  at  least  been  stated,  and  of 
some  of  the  most  important  subjects  copious  extracts  have  been 
given.  A  particular  Index,  at  the  end  of  the  work,  gives  informa- 
tion on  this  point.  The  work  also  contains  many  pictures  and 
scenes  of  life,  interviews  with  various  personages,  several  of 
his  sick-bed  and  travelling  stories,  &c.,  also  an  account  of  his 
last  days,  his  death  and  burial. 

"The  Tables  of  Contents  are  very  comprehensive,  so  also  are 
the  Chronological  Synopses  and  Indexes. 

"Another  satisfactory  appendage  are  the  engravings,  viz: 
clever  Portraits  of  Luther,  Catharine  von  Bora,  Luther's  Father, 
Mother,  and  Daughter,  of  Melanchthon,  Spalatin,  Justus  Jonas, 
Mathesius,  and  Bugenhagen  ;  also  of  Frederick  the  Wise,  John 
the  Constant,  and  Frederick  the  Magnanimous  ;  and  three  com- 
position pieces,  viz:  Luther  burning  the  Bulls  and  Decrees, 
Luther  at  the  Diet  of  Worms,  and  the  Wartburg  in  Luther's 
Times.  The  book  is  well  got  up,  and  we  cheerfully  recommend 
it  to  the  public  in  generel,  but  more  particularly  to  the  religious 
community,  convinced  that  they  must  welcome  it  with  pleasure, 
not  only  from  the  exhaustless  interest  and  still  recurring  nov- 
elty of  the  subject,  but  from  the  simple  and  pleasant  fireside 
style  in  which  Moritz  Meurer  has  drawn  up  his  narrative." — 
The.  Literary  World. 

THE  UNALTERED  AUGSBURG  CONFES- 
SION,  AND  THE  THREE   CHIEF   SYMBOLS  OF  THE 

CHRISTIAN  CHURCH,  with  Original  Preface,  His- 
torical Introductions,  and  Critical  and  Explana- 
tory Notes.  By  CHRISTIAN  HEINRICH  SCHOTT, 
Pastor  of  St.  Peter's  Church  in  Leipzig.  Care- 
fully translated  from  the  German.  200  pages, 
12mo.,  neatly  printed,  on  fine  paper,  hand- 
somely bound  in  Cloth.  Price  .  .  50  cents. 

The  Introductions  to  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  to  the 
Three  Creeds,  are  perhaps  the  best  condensed  Histories  of  these 
Symbols  extant.  So  also  will  the  reader  be  pleased  with  the 
spirit  of  the  Author's  Preface.  The  style  is  dignified  and  highly 
religious  and  orthodox. 

The  Critical  and  Explanatory  Notes  are  copious  and  instruc- 
tive. In  fact,  the  information  to  be  gained  from  them  is  seldom 
to  be  met  with  elsewhere.  They  treat  of  all  the  ancient  Sects 
and  Heresies, — point  out  clearly  and  distinctly  true  from  false 
doctrine,  by  giving  scriptural  authority  for  every  position  ad- 
vanced, and  defend  the  true  Evangelical  Faith  from  the  impu- 
tations of  the  papistical  theologians, — showing  what  Papacy  is, 
by  exposing  the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  Church. 


THE  UNALTERED  AUGSBURG  CONFES- 
SION, With  an  Historical  Introduction.  By 
CHRISTIAN  HEINRICH  SCHOTT.  Translated  from 
the  German.  18mo.,  108  pages,  paper  cover. 
Price 12^  cents. 

LUTHER'S  SMALLER  CATECHISM,  to 

which  is  added,  THE  ORDER  OF  SALVATION,  AN 
ANALYSIS  OF  THE  CATECHISM,  A  SHORT  EX- 
AMINATION in  Questions  and  Answers,  together 
with  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION,  and  a  Col- 
lection of  Hymns.  Price  .  .  .  18i  cents. 

Extract  from  the  Qth  Session  of  the  Western  District  of  the  Ev. 
Luth.  Synod  of  Ohio  and  adjacent  States,  held  at  Delaware,  Del. 
Co.,  Ohio. 

"Resolved,  That  this  body  considers  the  English  Catechism, 
published  by  Mr.  Ludwig  of  New- York,  to  be  the  best  edition  of 
this  work  ;  and,  therefore,  recommends  it  in  preference  to  all 
others,  to  the  congregations  of  this  synodical  district  ;  but  at 
the  same  time  requests  of  Mr.  Ludwig,  in  any  future  edition,  to 
add  the  word  "' true,'"  in  the  answer  to  the  first  question  in 
the  5th  part,  and  to  omit  the  word  "  '  merely' "  in  the  explanation 
of  the  6th  article,  in  the  2d  part  ;  and,  in  general,  to  follow  as 
closely  as  possible,  the  Genuine  Lutheran  Catechism." 

A  CATECHISM  OF  THE  DISTINCTIVE  DOCTRINES 
OF  THE  EVANGELICAL  PROTESTANT  AND  THE  RO- 
MAN CATHOLIC  CHURCHES.  Price  .  12i  cts. 

SCRIPTURAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE  LU- 
THERAN DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LORD'S 
SUPPER.  By  the  Rev.  H.  I.  SCHMIDT,  D.D. 
Prof,  of  the  German  Language  and  Literature, 
&c.,  in  Columbia  College  in  New-York.  1  Vol. 
18mo.  Neatly  done  up  in  Cloth.  Price  50  cts. 

This  Essay,  as  now  published,  originally  appeared  in  the 
Evangelical  Review,  Oct.  1851,  it  has  since  been  revised  and 
amended  by  the  Author,  and  prefaced  by  a  brief  history  of  the 
doctrine  which  it  discusses.  "There  are  sundry  reasons  for 
regarding  a  historic  view  of  our  doctrine  as  a  desideratum  at  the 
present  time.  It  is  important,  to  show  that  in  the  views  re- 
specting the  Lord's  Supper,  which  Luther  so  clearly  and  fully 
stated,  and  so  ably  defended,  he  propounded  no  novelties,  but 
simply  re-asserted  and  vindicated,  in  opposition  to  the  errors 


and  perversions  of  Romanism,  the  doctrinal  views  of  the  primi- 
tive Church,  and  above  all,  the  sense  of  Holy  Writ,  conveyed  in 
most  direct  and  simple  language.  It  is  important  to  show,  that 
in  our  interpretation  of  the  words  of  the  institution,  and  of  the 
language  of  St.  Paul,  we  have  on  our  side  not  only  the  exposi- 
tions given  by  the  early  Fathers  in  general,  but  the  simple  and 
strictly  scriptural  interpretations  of  those  in  particular,  who 
immediately  succeeded  the  apostolic  age,  and  derived  their  views 
from  the  apostles  themselves.  It  is  the  more  important  to  point 
out  this  connexion,  because,  even  if  these  primitive  Fathers  de- 
served in  any  particular  to  be  looked  upon  with  suspicion,  which 
we  deny,  there  could  be,  in  respect  of  the  subject  here  discussed, 
no  motive  to  change,  to  distort,  or  in  any  way  to  pervert  and 
corrupt,  the  teachings  which  they  had  received  directly  from 
one  or  more  of  our  Lord's  apostles.  In  matters  pertaining  to  the 
polity  and  discipline,  to  the  general  government  of  the  Church, 
we  may  safely  admit,  without  any  serious  disparagement  to  the 
clergy  of  the  first  two  centuries,  that  human  passions,  motives 
of  self-interest  and  self-aggrandizement  may  have  led,  even  at 
that  early  age,  gradually  and  perhaps  imperceptibly,  to  arbitrary 
arrangements  and  assumptions  of  authority,  not  borne  out  by 
the  sanction  of  Scripture.  But  so  much  were  the  circumstances 
and  wants  of  the  infant  Church  calculated  to  throw  power  into 
the  hands  of  her  pastors  and  teachers,  that  it  seems  scarcely 
Just  to  charge  the  gradually  increasing  importance  and  growing 
authority  of  the  clergy  to  their  own  ambitious  schemes  and 
measures.  However  this  may  be,  there  is  no  evidence  and  no 
reason  to  believe,  that  in  the  primitive  ages  of  the  Church  the 
doctrines  of  Christianity  suffered  any  corruption  within  her  pale; 
on  the  other  hand,  we  are  certain  that  the  early  Fathers  were 
the  staunch  and  faithful  protectors  and  defenders  of  the  pure 
and  uncorrupted  truths  of  the  gospel,  in  opposition  to  the  spe- 
culatists  and  heretics  who  sought,  in  various  ways,  to  modify 
and  pervert  them.  Doctrinal  corruptions  within  the  Church 
were  of  later  growth,  and  it  was  not  until  the  hierarchy  of  Rome 
was  fully  established,  that  it  occurred  to  ambitious  priests  and 
arrogant  prelates,  that  the  Sacraments  might  be  effectually  em- 
ployed as  means  of  exalting  their  personal  importance,  and  in- 
creasing their  official  dignity  and  power;  and  to  render  them 
thus  subservient,  the  doctrines  of  Scripture  regarding  them  were 
either  distorted,  or  encumbered  with  human  inventions.  But 
on  subjects  of  this  kind  we  may  safely  regard  the  early  Church 
as  holding  and  promulgating  the  genuine  doctrines  of  Scripture, 
and  the  just  and  sound  views  which  she  had  received  directly 
from  the  lips  of  inspired  apostles.  And  hence  it  is  that  we  deem 
it  important  to  trace  the  views  respecting  the  Lord's  Supper, 
which,  taught  by  our  Symbolical  Books,  are  presented  and  de- 
fended in  the  following  treatise  ujj  to  that  early  age,  in  which 
the  doctrinal  corruptions  which  after-ages  of  pampered  prosper- 
ity and  priestly  arrogance  superinduced,  were  still  unknown. 
We  merely  yet  remark,  that  we  are  mainly  indebted  for  much 
that  is  introduced  to  Gucricke's  Handbuch  der  Kirchengeschichte. 
We  assert  then,  that  the  Church  has,  at  all  times,  from  the  very 


beginning,  held  and  avowed  the  belief,  that  in  the  Sacrament  of 
the  Altar  the  real  (not  figurative  body  and  blood  of  the  Saviour 
are  truly  present,  distributed  to  communicants,  and  received  by 
true  believers  to  their  unspeakable  comfort  and  edification,  their 
establishment,  confirmation  and  advancement  in  that  spiritual 
life,  of  which  Christ  within  them  is  the  vital  principle  and  the 
very  essence." 

A  COLLECTION  OF  HYMNS  AND  LITUR- 
GY, for  the  use  of  Evangelical  Lutheran 
Churches.  Published  by  order  of  the  Ev.  Lu- 
theran Ministeriam  of  the  State  of  New-York. 
Various  bindings  and  prices.  Sheep,  50  cents. 
Roan,  stamped,  75  cents.  Calf,  $1.  Morocco, 
extra  gilt  edges,  $1.  75  cents.  A  discount 
made  to  the  Trade. 

THE  CHRISTIAN  BOOK  OF  CONCORD  or 
Symbolical  Book  of  the  Ev.  Lutheran  Church : 
To  which  is  prefixed  an  historical  Introduction. 
Translated  from  the  German.  Bound.  Pubi 
lished  by  Solomon  Henkel  &  Co.  .  $2  50. 

Baptism,  Confirmation  and  Marriage  Certifi- 
cates, neatly  printed  in  German  and  in  English, 
constantly  on  hand  at  $1  pr.  100. 

CST  Printing  of  all  kinds,  in  both  languages, 
carefully  and  correctly  executed  ;  at  moderate 
prices,  for  cash. 


53  u  d;  b  r  u  cf  c  r  u  n  b   93  e  c  (  e  g  e  r, 
Ho.  46,   He  feij-Strrtjje, 

91  e  u>  =  g)  o  r  f  , 

luit  folgenbe  Sitter  berlcgt  uub  fihnmt  btcfelfcen 
tton  ifym  ober  fetnen  ^Igeuten  bejogeit  toerben  : 


t  .fcrti?§t?oftWc,  son  Sett  SDietrt*.  Smpenal-Dc- 
tn»,  grobe  ©cbrift,  f^bneis  Rapier,  mit  Suture  33il6ni§,  gut  ge- 
bunben.  frets  ........  $2  00. 

G't)tinc,clifd>c§  <5^oi:corttonbiich  cber  fammtli^e  in  fcem  Son» 
cprbienbud)e  entl)aUene  f»jmbcHf4)t  ©lautenef^riften  ber  esange- 
Iifc^4iitb,erifci5en  A1rd)e.  @ro§  Duotej,  etwa  700  Setten,  gut 
gebnnbcit  in  farbigea  gepre§te«>  Jeber.  ^retss  .  •  $1  00. 

Die  SltigSbnrgifrfK  CTonfcffiun,  »o(f«fa§(id)  erffart  »cn  ®. 
Setimann  unb  ^.  Sdjnabel,  euaug.  lutf).  ^rebiger  in  ©ad)fen. 

•    ©ebunben,  $0  38;  brof^trt  ......       $025. 

tf'irrfKiuCSefoiicjbiid)  fiir  e»angelif^-futf)erifc^e  ©emeinben  un- 
geanberter  5(ug^burgifc^er  Soufeffton.  S?erijffentlid)t  innt  ber  Son- 
gregation  ber  uuveranberten  SIugeburgtfdKrt  (ionfeffton  ju  @t. 
i'oiii*,  iJIJo.  ©rc^  Xucbej.  grobe  fwfcrtft,  gut  gebunben  in  farbiged 
gefreb'tee  Seber.  5->r«*  *0  75.  aleiue  5lu»gabe,  $0  50,  fetnge- 
bunbene,  $1  unb  $1  25. 

3»etmal  52  au^crfefene  25iblifd)s.'  .^>ifto^icn  «u«  bem  atten  unb 
ncufit  JcftanieiUe,  brr  ^itgenb  5um  ^f^f't  abflera§t  »rn  ;vf  o- 
I)  a  n  n  •£>  ii  b  n  e  r.  II  n  »  e  r  a  n  b  e  r  t  e  21  it  *  g  a  b  >  e.  9->reta  $0  25. 

Der  qrof;c  isnfc  fJcinc  ^ati-rfii^mu*  Dr.  9)f  a  rtin  8ittf>er3. 
llu»ernnfcert  ait«  bent  SiMicerbienbudje  abgebrudEt.  sPrei«  $0  12^. 

Dor  fh'inc  ji\itcd)i«mttd  be«  fa  Dr.  War  tin  Slither*. 
SDJit  Minveifeiiten  unb  rr!larenben  Sibelfifllcit  au^  beit  beftcn  unb 
befanutcften  >2pnid)bud)ern  ^rgfdttij  gcfjiitniflt.  9leb|i  gcirtbr.- 
Iid)en  ©ebelen.  S33eldjem  beigefiigt  ii't  tie  Drbnung  bea  .^eUa, 
eine  3frglicbening  be^  Atated)ionuiiS,  ba-3  5Di'irtembergifd)«  ,ftincer> 
£x«intn,  bie  (ionftrmation  unb  Cdcfcte.  SWitnciien  S.ciiftnnatioit^« 
unb  anbern  Piefern,  wie  aud)  Uoflttanbiger  unseranberter  ?[M,ia» 
burgifd)er  Sonfeffton.  Sfteue  S(u«gabe.  y  reio  $0  1S^. 

®i-r  Heine  fintljcrird)c  .Hatcdtioitnie.  fiir  (2ouHta<T>fd)ii: 
fi'ti.  Sntbaltenb:  2)ie  ^iinf  OABptftucfe,  mit  erflareitbeit 
SBibctfteUen,  nebft  gen>obulid)en  ©ebcten.  91  cue  Slit^gabe. 
5)ret«  .....  ,  .  .  .  .  $0  6'4 

O~iid)ivibion.  2)er  ffeine  ,^oted)i2mu#,  fiir  gemeine  ^farrberreit 
uub  ^rebiger,  burd)  Dr.  9JJ  n  r  t  i  n  2  u  t  b  e  r.  '  $Tei«  .  $0  10. 

$iiMU'§  £cfcbtt(f)  fiir  *3d)iilcn,  oter  3»ette$  33ud).  Sedate 
Sluflage,  oerbeffert.  3)retiii  .....  $()  25, 

6 


nebft  ?efe-  itnb  DenMtehtttgen  ji"n 
erfhn  llnterrid)t  ber  Winter.  <£in  ganj  ncuea  SBerf  108  Seiten 
9>rei*  ..........  $0  18%. 

9?i'itc  (2chul=  n  nb  .^aiiSftbcl.    108  (Seiten.    5>reia        $0  18%. 

ShiJvOf^tidi  itnb  tfrfe-  unb  £>enMlebungen  jitm  erfhn  Untrrrid)t 
t-er  .ftinber,  ober  (Srftea  93ud).  $>reta  .  .  .  $012.1. 

^Jrnf  tifdics  Stcdnicubudi,  fiir  bcittfdx  Slemcntarfduiten  in  ben 
^creinifiten  ©taaten  .......  $0  37.]. 

!£>cr  Fleiii'1  3toa  d'nantt,  cber  cine  lurje  unb  itmfaiTcnbe  Ueber» 
ftd)t  bcr  !)?egierung  ber  Ser.  Staaten  unb  ber  Staaten^tetiterHncKn. 
i>ou  5.  58.'@t)urtleff  ......  $0  50. 


33ucher  tr»erben  im  ©refjen,  tnit  ctnem  bcbeiu 
tonben  ^abatt,  an  33udi()dnblcr  ab^egebeu. 

Uorratl)i{]  JUKI  Prrhanf: 

®  ii*  5BibcI,  cber  bie  ganje  5ftlicie  Sd)rift  be^  often  unb  neuen  Jeftrt- 
ment?  ttach  Dr.  OTarti  n  i'ntber'^  Uebfrfffjuna.     $n  »erfd)ie< 
benen  5luegaben  unb  (Stnbanbeit          .        .        $0  75.  bis*  $4  00. 
rnfct'S  fecl)«  SSncber  torn  tvafircn  SBriftentbnm   nebft 
cte?iiartlein.  5)lnlacel^t)ia.  (i)utgebunben.  $Teitf$2  50. 
Jranffurt  a.  OT.,  gut  gebunben.    ?)retd      .        $1  50. 
£>affc!bc.    ^Reutlingen.  4to.  ©ut  gebunben          .        .        $2  00. 
tag  li  *e*  ^an  bbud)  in  guten  unbbBfen2:agen. 
lpbia.    Out  gebuneen.    $rei3  ...        $1  00. 

c,  prbinarer  (Siitbanb.    JReutltngen  .        .        $0  50. 

&affclbc,  gut  gcbunbcn.    Stuttgart     .        .        .  $0  62^. 

3.  %•.  3tnrf's  9J?orgcn»  itnb  ?lbenbanbad)ten  frcmmer  Sbrifieit 
ouf  alleSngc  im  3a^r.  trie  foldje  aii3  ber  duelle  bee  gbttltd)en 
SBorte  fliefeh.  6te2lu«5gabe.  ©itt  gebunben.  granffurta.  2ft.  $1  00. 
5f*soltcv*torf'  3  ^falmcn,  geb.  ....       $1  00. 

3>affe!bc,  brcf*irt         .......        $0  75. 

afPoItct-^fcorf  ii  ffii'ncuS'cr  25rief  an  bie^wgenb.  geb.$0  44. 
®nffflbe,  brefdnrt        .......        $031. 

'.'rharfcf'd  erbaulidje  SBetrac^tungen,  geb.  $0  56. 

brofdiirt         .......        $038. 

Sitcr  .^iid)cr  ooit  bcr  birdie.    93on  3.  2)  e  It  |  f  d),    3)reiben. 
$rfi«  .........        $0  75. 

$>n3  @afratncnt    bc§  loohrcn  ficibce  unb   SShites  ^efu 
Sbrifti.    5?eid)t<  unb  Sommunttnt»(^ebcte  »on  %rar\i  3)  eli  13  f  d). 
geb  ...........        $6  50. 

Xaffolbo,  brcfd)trt         .......       $031. 

©r;flhl?'nflcn  t>ptt   .ftart  ©  tober.    ©efammt^u^gabe.    5D7ft 
Betd^nitngen     3  33be     ®eb.        .....       $2  75. 

fur  ^tnbcr,  son  ^arl  ©tctcr     $0  20. 


8 


SQtourer'S  fintficr'S  Si-bi'tt,  in  2  93be.  geb.,  ofnte  33i(ber,  $1  75. 
®afff!be,  al'jjefiirjite  SdtSgabe,  gebunben  ...  $1  00. 
Xaff  I&f.  nette  2lit3gabe,  8?o.  >ieb.  mil  JBiftern  .  .  $2  50. 
.<tn'tlu:('  ®:rlvnltift.  ©fifHidK  fiefrer  uuc  Spruce  »cm  5?-  <£pee, 

Slngelius  SilejniiS  itnb  9lu»ali$,  gebunfen  ...  $0  75. 
<£rbait!ifbc3  unb  23eKbatilirfK3  son  ©erJjarb  Serfteegen,  ge- 

bunben  .  •     .......        $0  75. 


u^  3oK  <PJtd&.  ©a  it  erM  religibfen  @d)rifren  fitr 
euangelifie  tihrtfteit,  gebunben       .....        $0  75. 

:hnnnn'§  'Jlugsiburgifcbc  Gottfcffion,  »olf«fa§lt(^  erlfart, 
gebuuten        .........      $n  62j. 

Infrrlbadi,  Dr.  C5.  21.,  £tibrtfd}>frUifcbe  ginleitutig  in  tie  Slugg. 
bttrflif^t  Sonffffton.    ?lebft  eriteuerter  UntcrfuAung  ber  2?erbinb« 
lidiftMt  ter  Smttbole  unb  ber  33erpflid)titng  auf  biefelben.    UVeibot, 
brofd)irt          .        .        .......        $0  75. 

e,  gebunben          ..:....       ,11  00. 

c,  2  58be.,@tuttgart,  fetne  neue  2liK^abe, 
gebunteit         .........        $3  25. 

SJtithw'd  Dr.  93?.  £tfd)reben  ober  Sottoquia,  fo  er  tit  uielen  ^afjren 
geaen  gelebrtcni'euten,  and)  fremben  ©dilten  unb  fetnen  Jtfdtvicfeflen 
gefi'ibrct;  beriuiegegeben  ooa  ^.  g.  gorfteman.  8vo.  3  Sbe. 
i'eipjig  1844.  @ut  gebunben.  $5  (X). 

£mfter-3  .^ilfcuifit  nad)  ?.  dranad)      ....       $1  50. 

"^orfrd,  -3L>bann,    ©ottltdje   3  it  6  r  it  n  g  ber  <S  e  el  e  it  u  n  b 

iBa  d)«t  bum  b  er  ©  lau  b  tg  en.    Stuttgart,  ©eb-        $1  25. 

Jratttmnnn,  ©efdjidjte  ber  d)rtftlid)en  ^trd)e        .        .       $0  25. 
^Jaul  CSorharbt.  ftir$tngef4i$iffl$e4  JebenssMlb  aitss  ber  3eit  be3 

grogeit  Sburfitrflcn.     Son  Dr.  SI.  2Bilbenbaiit.    2  Ste  in  1  53b. 

gcb.    Seipjtg  ........        $1  75. 

,  3-  'V.au^erlefene  beiltge  O^eben  fiber  bie  Sinin-  unb 


»on  Dr.  ^).  «$.  »on  'Dkljer.    granffurt,  gcb.  ...       $3  00. 
^ritfd).  Sbriftenfragen  ......       $9  15. 

Dr.  <J3h.  3i«c.  3?cncr1^  Seben,  2eb,ren  unb  SOirfen 
Setpjtg  ..........  $0  10. 

3>er  it'«d)cnmtd)ol,  etne  ®rjab,Iung  nttt  gabetn,  oon  ilarl  ©to- 
ber  ...  ......  $0  20. 

^iehcHifle  ^affi'ott  flcfrf)ichte        .       .       .       .       $005. 

(gwifteltt  unb  G-oattgcHcn  auf  afle  Sonntage  unb  »ornebmfteit 
Sefte  .  ....  ...  $0  10. 

$>ic  Hiiiou  (Sftoral  .^arsiiotiic,  init  beutfd)em  unb  englifdjein 
'Jerte,  sen  Jp  S.  St)er  ......  $1  00. 

^litttnt.'Qcr  3.  331.,  Setradstuncjen  fiber  ba«  betlige 
SJI  b  e  n  b  m  a  f)  I.  6te  Sluflage,  beforgt  »eu  5-  S-  SSfiHer,  gebun- 
ten  ..........  $0  75. 


$ofmantt,  fi.  biefieilige  $  of  ft  on  ober  ®efd)i*te  bea  Cei* 
bena  unb  (£terben3  intferS  Jperrn  unb  Jpeilanbeo  $efu  Gbriftt,  nach 
ben  oier  (Joangelien.  3"m  ©ebmnd)e  in  ji'irdicn  unb  @ct)ii(eit 
ttcthrenb  ber  beiligen  jfaftenjeit.  $Rit  ©ebeten  unb  ?tebern,  nebft 
einer  furjcn  ©efd)id)te  ber  Berftb'rung  3erufdlem«.  2te  Shttaafie, 
gebunben  ...  $U  25. 

(Sffomifr,  Dr.  ^.,  £eb>b«d)  ber  $tr  d)  en  g  efd)  t  ch  te,  ^e- 
Intnben $1  50. 

2^taro«>§f*i,  Dr.  'TP.  (5.  3.  »on.  Da«  9kter  ttnfcr  in  Shriften- 
kdren.  gin  fate$eHf$er  3?erfud),  brofd)trt  .  .  $0  25. 

S»i>lK,  'TP.  Die  9/itffton  nnter  ben  ^>eiben.  Biret  G^c. 
fprad)e  nur  SBelebnnig  bf?  3?clfee  gefd)rieben,  brofd)  $0  13. 

$<bltQ<l,  &.  Die  biblifd)e  (?i  efd)  id)  t  e  in  furjen  Grjoft. 
(ungen.  Sin  Se^r-  unb  fefebud),  brcfd)irt  ...  $0  13. 

0?hriftlifhe  ^nmificn:.25tbJipthcF.  Sine  §InH'pIogte  mis  ben 
»erjug(id)ften  Oetft  unb  (^emittb  belcbenben  <Sd)iiftcn  ber  alteren 
unb  n'eueven  Sett-  4  Santd)en,  brbfd)irt  ...  $0  63. 

flJortufl,  Ctb.  (S.  &.,  aJlornen-  u  n  b  SI  b  e  n  b  ge  be  t  e  auf 
atle  fecmntage,  ?Cod)en  unb  gefle  bes  $trd)enial)ri}.  SIJttt  beigefiig* 
ton  Sibclfpriidjen,  geb.  $0  75. 

•£>i*r','cH»?,  ?lusserlefene  d^rtjHtdje  JJerngebete.  (Sttt 
allgemctne^  ©cbetbud),  gebunben  ....  $0  75. 

Xctfclbc.  £agnd)er$Banbelbe$  £  h  r  i  (I  e  n  ,  ber  immer 
bae  (Sine,  was  9Iott)  ift,  cor  $tugen  fiat.  Sine  2(i;(eitiiiig  jum  tbd« 
ttjU'it  (ibriflentbum.  in  2et)ren  nnb 'Slegeln,  niit  Oiebeten  uitb  i'iebern, 
ill's  Witgabe  fi'ir  baa  ganje  ?eben.  3te  9lnflage.  geb.  $0  25. 

Svltfobmibi,  Dr.  5  J&v  Doflftantiges  ftamm,  unb  itnnoeripanbt» 
fd)nft(id)ee  ©efammt'ffiorterbitd)  ber  beutfd)cn  Sprad)e  ait^  aflen 
ihreu  'iJJiunbarten  unb  mit  often  grembiuortern.  (Sin  Jpanefd>aft 
ber  Wutterfpradje'  fur  afle  Stanbe  bea  beutfdjcn  2.U;Ifee.  4to.  ge^ 
bunben $2  50. 

'JHphabctc  ber  beutfdjen  unb  latetnifcben  Sd)rift 
nnb  Siffern  jum  SBebufe  bee  gefententene  ber  A'inber.  5  iBogen  in 
golio  : $0  13. 

3>cS  olrctt  9iicolau«i  .f»iinniu$  (^lawbcnsircFirc  ber  ecangef. 
littf).  Strobe.  2te  5Iuflage,  gebunben  ....  $l'uO. 

%">nffion§bc(rarf)tuu«cn  sum  ©ebraud)  bet  5au$!anbad)tcn.  9)?it 
einem  SSorroorte  son  t)r.  ®.  £.  21.  ^arten,  brofd).  .  '  $0  30. 

ftr.  Xteli^frf),  »om  ^aufe  ©ottes  unb  ber  &ir.d)e,  brofd).      $0  50. 

335.  iJohc,  Sonrab.  Sine  ©abe  fitr  Sonfirmanben.  getne  Slusgabe 
mit  2Mlbern  $0  25. 

'TP.  9lcbnibacf)cr.  ©efd)id)tlid)e  Beugntffe  fitr  ben  ©lauben.  2 
3?anbd)en $0  30. 

2>erfc(bc,  neuefie  SBoI^bibliotfjef,  1847—51.    14  33anbd)en    $2  25. 

$$;hr,  bte  ^eier  be$  5Beib,nad)teabenb«.  Sine  933ei()nad)t^gabe  fiir 
.rtinber  $0  15 

£crfelbe,  ©ottbetf  unb  SInna  .....  $0  20. 
c,  ber  Heine  2>an«l $0  15. 


10 


OT.  ft.  3Bcftrhrtii,  TOitnberfnmS  unb  ScUcneS  cut*  b:r 
fatdjte.    gur  Sung  uno  «Ht          .  .  $0  95. 

9lufjevbem  fyat  er,  nebft  anberen  a  cbt;(utf?etifeben  SSerfeu, 
cine  grejje  2ln$al)(  2lnttquarifcbe  33itdber,  bie  er  you 
3cit  gu  3eit  in  bcm  //Sutfierifiten  <§erc(b"  jum  5J>?r; 
faufe  anjeigt. 

€  iuf-,  Confirmations-  itnb  €rau-Sd)dne,  gut  gebrucft, 
in  bcutfcber  ober  env](ifcher  (Spracfye,  v>ovrat(;ig  ju  $1 
bag  100. 

KJ3  9M(cvt?i  Xirucfavbeiten  lit  beutfdhet  unb  euglifd)i;r 
©ura*e,  twcrben  forgfaltuj  unb  billig  cerfcrtigt. 

*#*  Pfr"fut()enfd)C^crolb",  em  ltterartf*e«  JBlatt 
fur  .Rirdbe  unb  <$au6,  erfdbctnt  recjelmapig  am  1.  unb  15. 
jebe«  SWonat*,  foftet  joifyvHcti,  24  9htmme.ni,  $1. 

*#*  Most  of  the  above  Books,  and  especially  those 
published  by  H.  LIJDWIG,  may  also  be  ordered 
from : — 

E.  H.  PEASE  &  Co.,  Albany,  N.  Y. 

SCH^FER  &  KORADI,  167,  North  Third-st.  )  p^y 

PEOK  &  BLISS,  Cor.  N.  3d.  St.  &  Race-st.  J 

J.  NEWTON  KURTZ,  Baltimore,  Md. 

FRANZ  DRESSEL,  Pittsburg,  Pa. 

HECHEL  &  LEE,  Reading,  Pa. 

WILLIAM  MURRAY,  Lancaster,  Pa. 

H.  HAMMANN,  Easton,  Pa. 

REV.  C.  SPIELMANX,  Columbus,  0. 

REV.  J.  J.  FAST,  Canton,  O. 

EGGERS  &  WILDE,  Cincinnati,  O. 

J.  G.  WESSELHCEFFT,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

S.  D.  HENKEL,  New-Market,  Va. 


04181 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


